Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafesj

User Name Thread Name Subject Posted
GUEST,Jack the Sailor BS: Palin VP McCain choice (1269* d) RE: BS: Palin VP McCain choice 01 Sep 08

Subject: RE: BS: Palin VP McCain choice
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 11:23 AM


" Mayor of Wasilia versus Senator from Illinois? Hockey mom?? "

>>She has been a gov. of a state- a higher position, and an executive. Obama has been a Sen. for about the same time- and has done very little other than run for President. If SHE is not qualified, then Obama needs to slink out the back door before someone looks at what he has DONE- I HAVE posted his votes FROM HIS SITE in several threads.<<

Obama was in the illinois legislature for eight years, He has been a Senator for three and two thirds years whereas Plain has been a governor for one and two thirds years. The Bull shit is call that the same.

She has more experience.


>>You may not agree with her, but then, I don't agree with Obama- Does that give me the right to claim that HE is only a "basketball dad"?<<

You have the right to say what you want. but you would be wrong in saying that. Palin calls her self "just a hockey mom" every time she speaks. So no one is wrong to call her "just a hockey mom" when that's how she describes herself.

>>Feel free to say that you do not want her to be VP, but don't give us any bull about HER not being qualified while claiming Obama is.<<

This is from David (axis of evil) From's blog on the New Republic Online.

I (and most NRO readers) will vote against Barack Obama because I oppose his ideas. He is (at best) an old-line Walter Mondale taxer, spender, and regulator possibly still under the influence (at worst) of the radical alienation from America preached in his church and expressed in his own early writings. I'd vote against a candidate like this even if he had previously served as CEO of Google, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Governor of California, with a Nobel prize on top of it all.

That said: Can we conservatives please stop kidding ourselves about Barack Obama's "qualifications"? Yes, if I had been a Democratic donor back in 2006, I'd sure worry about whether Barack Obama had what it took to be president. That was before he took on the toughest political operation in America, before he beat Bill and Hillary Clinton, before he won 18 million primary votes.

Obama's nomination was not handed to him. He fought hard for it and won against the odds. "Qualifications" predict achievement. Once you have achieved, it doesn't matter what your qualifications are. Who cares whether the guy who built a big company from nothing didn't have much of a resume when he started? But if you are applying to run a big company built by somebody else, the resume matters ...

The worst mistake in any fight is to under-estimate your opponent's abilities. Look what happened to the people who under-estimated Reagan. If conservatives are to have any hope in the coming weeks, we should wake up to the fact that we face in Barack Obama a formidable man, who appeals to something important and deep in the American electorate. He's not a superman, he has vulnerabilities, he can be beaten. But he won't be beaten until we who are trying to beat him understand why and how he has come so far.

This is an excellent description of Obama's current qualifications.

Likewise, had Sarah Palin decided in 2005 to run for president in 2008 - had she spent 3 years mastering the issues and explaining her views in public statements - had she one by one recruited leading experts on economic and defense issues to her cause and privately explored the issues of the day with them - then her current background would not be disqualifying. Indeed it would resemble that of many successful presidents.

Obama has edicated himself and built a powerful network of contacts to help him govern.

Palin has been a shill for the oil companies. She has administered a state with a huge budgetary surplus, which receives 7 federal dollars for every dollar in taxes that its people remit to Washington. Even with those advantages, she has lied about her involvement with the bridge to nowhere. She only opposed it after it had no chance. And even then she did not return the money that was allocated for it. She also abused her power in trying to get her brother in law fired. Worse than that she lied about it. Quite an accomplishment in just a year and a half. If tainting the office is the goal.

Post to this Thread -

Back to the Main Forum Page

By clicking on the User Name, you will requery the forum for that user. You will see everything that he or she has posted with that Mudcat name.

By clicking on the Thread Name, you will be sent to the Forum on that thread as if you selected it from the main Mudcat Forum page.
   * Click on the linked number with * to view the thread split into pages (click "d" for chronologically descending).

By clicking on the Subject, you will also go to the thread as if you selected it from the original Forum page, but also go directly to that particular message.

By clicking on the Date (Posted), you will dig out every message posted that day.

Try it all, you will see.