Fred

digster

slightofjeff wrote:

I've answered this question for you before, just not to your satisfaction, I guess.

You seem to want to draw no distinction between the No. 1 and No. 2 on the ticket, but there is one. If we're going to have someone "inexperienced," I'd much rather it be the No. 2 on the ticket than the guy, you know, I'm actually voting for.

You're the kind of guy I was looking for, thank you.

But once again you do what I'm asking you not to. Don't address Obama's lack of experience. Address Palin's. Trying to spin the argument back to the opposing side makes it sound like you don't have an argument of your own.

Obama's

Eight years in State Senate
Four years in U.S. Senate

vs. Palin's

Four years on City Council
Four years as Mayor
Twenty months as Governor

I'll even give you that they are comparable resumes in terms of experience (even though it's about twelve years to six, but I digress). Let's say Palin's as experienced as Obama.

McCain said, and I quote, that his VP selection would have "extensive credentials" to be vice president, and could step into the role of Presidency at a moment's notice. And before you come back at me with Obama, remember that he was voted as the Democratic nominee. The voters used their judgment, but McCain used his to choose Palin. Are we expected to believe that Palin meets his own version of "extensive credentials?" With NO foreign policy experience?

What does it say about McCain that he says Obama is unfit to lead then endorses someone as a person capable of being President with equal or less experience than Obama? How seriously must McCain take his message of the necessity of experience when he violates his own standards when making his VP choice? Don't come back at me with Obama! Obama's lack of experience is well-documented. Defend your own candidate; what, in McCain's mind, makes Palin fit to be president when she violates the standards that he set for picking a VP choice early in this campaign?

I'll say it one more time, don't come back at me with Obama. This is McCain's judgment we're talking about here, not the judgment of the voters in Democratic primaries.

(P.S. Largest state? In size, sure, but is that how you want to judge experience? Sounds like a talking point to me).

Solat13

digster wrote:

You're the kind of guy I was looking for, thank you.

But once again you do what I'm asking you not to. Don't address Obama's lack of experience. Address Palin's. Trying to spin the argument back to the opposing side makes it sound like you don't have an argument of your own.

Obama's

Eight years in State Senate
Four years in U.S. Senate

vs. Palin's

Twenty months on City Council
Four years as Mayor
Twenty months as Governor

Just to be fair, it's 4 years in the city council 92-96.

mammasan

slightofjeff wrote:

Um, have you checked out Obama's "universal everything" policy? I swear to God, we're one step away from Obama offering all of us free cable, or a free Subway sandwich every other Tuesday.

If I had to pick the candidate I think "wants to spend more," McCain would come in second.

Yes I have checked out Obama's policy and that is why I'm not voting for him, well one of the reasons. I'm also not voting for McCain because unlike Obama he wants to spend more but collect less, which in my opinion is even worse than collect more spend more.

slightofjeff

digster wrote:

You're the kind of guy I was looking for, thank you.

But once again you do what I'm asking you not to. Don't address Obama's lack of experience. Address Palin's. Trying to spin the argument back to the opposing side makes it sound like you don't have an argument of your own.

I'd be disingenuous if I tried to paint Palin as the most experienced vice presidential candidate in all history.

I guess part of my point is that, to me and most people, "experience" is not as important in the No. 2 on the ticket than the No. 1.

The other part of my argument might be this: When it comes to Palin, it's not the breadth of experience that makes her attractive, but the specific KIND of experience.

One example: As governor of Alaska, perhaps our nation's most important oil state, she's well versed in energy issues. That's probably the No. 1 issue of our time, to be honest.

And she's proven the ability to lead ... even if it meant taking on Big Oil ... even if it meant taking on her own party. One of her first orders of business upon taking office was -- against the wishes of the oil companies and the Republican leadership -- to renegotiate a more favorable oil deal with the state. With the resulting proceeds, she sent every Alaskan citizen a check for $200.

To me, that's pretty inventive. And that's a good example of leadership.

Now, the reason people keep wanting to compare her experience to Obama's is because Obama (foolishly) keeps bringing it up.

digster

Solat13 wrote:

Just to be fair, it's 4 years in the city council 92-96.

I checked, and you're right. 92-96. Thanks for the tip.

I'm not saying she has no experience, but you could say she has AS much experience as Obama and my central argument still stands. My argument isn't meant to be about Obama or Palin; it's about McCain.

Cosmo

The whole thing about this Republican Conventions and all this talk about straightening out the government...
...
Do any of them realize that it is a Republican that is currently sitting in the White House?

brandon10

slightofjeff wrote:

I'd be disingenuous if I tried to paint Palin as the most experienced vice presidential candidate in all history.

I guess part of my point is that, to me and most people, "experience" is not as important in the No. 2 on the ticket than the No. 1.

The other part of my argument might be this: When it comes to Palin, it's not the breadth of experience that makes her attractive, but the specific KIND of experience.

One example: As governor of Alaska, perhaps our nation's most important oil state, she's well versed in energy issues. That's probably the No. 1 issue of our time, to be honest.

And she's proven the ability to lead ... even if it meant taking on Big Oil ... even if it meant taking on her own party. One of her first orders of business upon taking office was -- against the wishes of the oil companies and the Republican leadership -- to renegotiate a more favorable oil deal with the state. With the resulting proceeds, she sent every Alaskan citizen a check for $200.

To me, that's pretty inventive. And that's a good example of leadership.

Now, the reason people keep wanting to compare her experience to Obama's is because Obama (foolishly) keeps bringing it up.

Yes and in order to do these things she sucks big oils cock. She pushes in every way possible to push for drilling in any place possible, no matter the consequences!

These talking points that she's talking on big oil are complete bullshit..........The only place she's taking them on is her face.

jimed14

Cosmo wrote:

The whole thing about this Republican Conventions and all this talk about straightening out the government...
...
Do any of them realize that it is a Republican that is currently sitting in the White House?

you're messing up the spin with actual facts ... the straight talk express will not be happy with you.

slightofjeff

brandon10 wrote:

These talking points that she's talking on big oil are complete bullshit..........The only place she's taking them on is her face.

I'd like for you to explain how Big Oil wanted to renegotiate a contract with the state of Alaska that was less favorable to them.

Reverse psychology maybe?

Seriously, please explain ...

mammasan

I think a lot of people are missing a very important fact here. Most presidents surround themselves with advisors with years of experience in every facet of government. So Obama's experience or Palin's experience doesn't mean shit. For example Obama has surrounded himself with some of the leading minds in economics from the Chicago School. So while Obama, himself, may have very little economics expertise. He surrounds himself with people who have vast amounts of knowledge and insight into the matter. I'm sure the same applies for McCain. So all this back and forth bullshit about experience is fucking non-sense. It's a distraction. We the people should send a message to these two that we are going to fucking boycott the elections unless they start addressing the issues.

jimed14

mammasan wrote:

I think a lot of people are missing a very important fact here. Most presidents surround themselves with advisors with years of experience in every facet of government. So Obama's experience or Palin's experience doesn't mean shit. For example Obama has surrounded himself with some of the leading minds in economics from the Chicago School. So while Obama, himself, may have very little economics expertise. He surrounds himself with people who have vast amounts of knowledge and insight into the matter. I'm sure the same applies for McCain. So all this back and forth bullshit about experience is fucking non-sense. It's a distraction. We the people should send a message to these two that we are going to fucking boycott the elections unless they start addressing the issues.

I agree with that to a certain extent.

No one needs to have EVERY detail of EVERY facet of our govenment, the world, the economy, etc comepltely embedded in their brain and at their fingertips immediately at all times ... this isn't a Final Exam.

But, you DO have to have a solid understanding of what those advisors are saying to you and the impact of your decisions.

brandon10

slightofjeff wrote:

I'd like for you to explain how Big Oil wanted to renegotiate a contract with the state of Alaska that was less favorable to them.

Reverse psychology maybe?

Seriously, please explain ...

Slightly less favorable, bur when she promises to them that she will push for as much drilling as possible, their eyes light up.

This whole election campaign from the republicans has been pushed by big oil. Every second word out of McSame's mouth is offshore drilling. Sarah Palin is just another pawn in big oils's republican party. And you are blind if you don't see this.

mammasan

jimed14 wrote:

I agree with that to a certain extent.

No one needs to have EVERY detail of EVERY facet of our govenment, the world, the economy, etc comepltely embedded in their brain and at their fingertips immediately at all times ... this isn't a Final Exam.

But, you DO have to have a solid understanding of what those advisors are saying to you and the impact of your decisions.

Which I'm sure both Presidential candidates and the VP's have. These are fairly educated people.

Also I would like to pose a question to those who have an issue with Obama's experience. Did you vote for Bush and why was it not an issue 8 years ago?

I ask because I hear a lot of Republicans bringing up the experience card but that was not an issue back in 2000.

cincybearcat

slightofjeff wrote:

Why was it offensive?

His best line was about taxes ... and he's absolutely right. Obama doesn't want to tax you ... just your employer and everything you buy.

Yep, that was the best line...it might be the best line of both conventions when all is said and done...

Though Hillary's comment about the twin cities (Bush/McCain) was a classic as well, no matter how true you think it to be.

cincybearcat

NMyTree wrote:

that speech was about as offensive as it gets.

here we go again..."I'm offended"..."thats' offensive"...

People getting "offended" right and left (no pun intended) at everything...

How do you go about living everyday? You must be offended every 2-3 minutes.

jimed14

mammasan wrote:

Which I'm sure both Presidential candidates and the VP's have. These are fairly educated people.

Also I would like to pose a question to those who have an issue with Obama's experience. Did you vote for Bush and why was it not an issue 8 years ago?

I ask because I hear a lot of Republicans bringing up the experience card but that was not an issue back in 2000.

Actually, I've heard a litany of folks that have been elected presidents have less political experience than any of these 4 ... I don't think Eisenhower had ANY politcal experience when he was elected.

digster

slightofjeff wrote:

I'd be disingenuous if I tried to paint Palin as the most experienced vice presidential candidate in all history.

I guess part of my point is that, to me and most people, "experience" is not as important in the No. 2 on the ticket than the No. 1.

The other part of my argument might be this: When it comes to Palin, it's not the breadth of experience that makes her attractive, but the specific KIND of experience.

One example: As governor of Alaska, perhaps our nation's most important oil state, she's well versed in energy issues. That's probably the No. 1 issue of our time, to be honest.

And she's proven the ability to lead ... even if it meant taking on Big Oil ... even if it meant taking on her own party. One of her first orders of business upon taking office was -- against the wishes of the oil companies and the Republican leadership -- to renegotiate a more favorable oil deal with the state. With the resulting proceeds, she sent every Alaskan citizen a check for $200.

To me, that's pretty inventive. And that's a good example of leadership.

Now, the reason people keep wanting to compare her experience to Obama's is because Obama (foolishly) keeps bringing it up.

First of all, Obama is right to bring it up. He should keep bringing it up. It shoots a hole into McCain's best argument against him.

And again, keep in mind that the Democratic primary voters' judgment is not on trial here. Once again, you fail to talk about McCain's judgment here. You can keep going on about how experience in the No. 1 choice is more important than the No. 2 choice, but it doesn't answer my question. It sidesteps the question. Do you think people will be voting for Obama for his extensive Washington experience? Not a chance, but people would be inclined to vote for McCain based on his experience, and his VP choice hurts that. But my main question hasn't been answered.

As dumb as it sounds, I'm going to make a math equation. It's not because I think anyone else is stupid, it's just cause I think I'm losing my own point in garbled language, so I want to be clear in the language I'm using.

Obama has experience in foreign relations, since he has traveled to other countries and acted as an emissary of the U.S., negotiated and dealt with foreign heads of state, been briefed by Army command in Iraq and Afghanistan, and has an exposure to politics on a national level. OK, let's call this experience level A. Now, Palin has none of that, but she does have experience running a state government, using the veto power, and basically doing executive stuff with no foreign policy experience whatsoever. She also has skills that Obama has not ascertained, but Obama has skills and experience that she has not ascertained. Obviously, unless you're reading from a Republican talking point memo these levels of experience are at the very least comparable. So let's also say Palin has experience level A.

McCain has said that Obama is not fit to lead; he has said that experience level A is quite simply not enough. His VP choice would have experience level B: extensive credentials and significant foreign policy experience, someone who would be ready to be president. Now,

A does not equal ready to be president, according to McCain.
However, A does equal A. (Obama vs. Palin)
McCain pledges to choose someone with experience level B.
McCain picks someone with experience level A.
A does not equal ready to be president, according to McCain.

What does McCain's choice say about his judgment? Obviously, he can't follow his own standards. Don't give No. 1 and No. 2; once again, I'm asking about McCain. Don't give me talking points about Alaska being the biggest state, the National Guard, or the fight against big oil. I could throw at you a talking about about Obama battling unethical practices in Washington with his legislation. Answer my question about McCain, because it's five days after he picked her, and I'm beginning to feel like there's no answer. Which makes his main case against Obama inadequate.

EDIT: And keep in mind, this VP choice is one of the best and most public displays of judgment a presidential candidate can make before an election. It shows the kind of person you think would be able to stand in your place should something terrible happen, someone who could keep the country in order during a trial. You think McCain did that by choosing Palin?

Solat13

"I had the privilege of living most of my life in a small town. I was just your average hockey mom, and signed up for the PTA because I wanted to make my kids’ public education better. When I ran for city council, I didn’t need focus groups and voter profiles because I knew those voters, and knew their families, too. Before I became governor of the great state of Alaska, I was mayor of my hometown. And since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience, let me explain to them what the job involves. I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a ‘community organizer,’ except that you have actual responsibilities."

Can't wait to see how that lines goes over tonight by Palin.

digster

Solat13 wrote:

"I had the privilege of living most of my life in a small town. I was just your average hockey mom, and signed up for the PTA because I wanted to make my kids’ public education better. When I ran for city council, I didn’t need focus groups and voter profiles because I knew those voters, and knew their families, too. Before I became governor of the great state of Alaska, I was mayor of my hometown. And since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience, let me explain to them what the job involves. I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a ‘community organizer,’ except that you have actual responsibilities."

Can't wait to see how that lines goes over tonight by Palin.

I love the people who are stupid enough to think that calling someone a community organizer is an insult.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

dunkman wrote:

could he have possible mentioned the military or warfare any more than he did... you're democratically electing a president.. not voting for Attila the Hun to enter the World Hall of Military Fame.

is this what americans want to hear? is this what they vote for.... guys who did well in questionable wars?

far out.

If Attila the Hun was still alive and running he would win the republican nominee hands down.

Gotta fight the ever changing and omnipresent boogeyman...this requires unprecedented warfare and carnage...and of course.....patriotism.

Little pink houses for you and me....