I would concede her candidacy is a (bad) joke. Not her. So what's a presidential candidate who can't speak a coherent English sentence? He's well coached and can deliver a line (when the teleprompter is working) but is no more ready to make important decisions on Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, N Korea, etc. than the man in the moon.
Getting tangled up now and then, then correcting oneself isn't what I'm talking about. Everybody does that at one time or another, including Sen. McCain. Heck, W's made a career of it. What Palin does is different. She answers in incoherent gibberish, then just stops, as if she's actually said something intelligible.
As for Obama's readiness on foreign policy, I just disagree. I started out the GOP primaries rooting for McCain, but he's talked himself out of my support. Obama's approach to foreign policy, OTOH, has a lot of what we used to call conservatism in it.
I've spent most of the day reading proposed policies and plans since I have to submit my absentee ballot here in the next day or so. I don't know how anyone can really get anything from either one's proposed 'policy'. Both of their proposed financial plans are complete BS and not only are they unrealistic but neither would make it through the House/Senate. I'll talk more about McCain's bc unlike Obama he actually has a proposed plan. Obama has about three different loads of crap none of which make any sense at all the biggest of which is his plan to raise taxes on business and the wealthiest Americans. The raise in taxes on businesses will never make it through the House or Senate, you talking about something that would negatively effective the economy, thats it. Then there is McCain's proposal to income tax benefits, another thing that will never make it through Congress. These are key components of these respective 'plans' and both show just how ignorant these 'plans' really are.
And yet he got it more right than Palin did in that same article.
is there really a degree of rightness in that answer? And if so, you'd think he should get it 100 percent right, what with being in the Senate for more than 30 years.
No time to reply right now. I'll try to write one later. Short version: yes, he should've gotten it 100%, but yes, there are degrees of rightness in that answer.
Basically which VP candidate **** up worse on a question isn't the issue here. The major issue is who is better for the country and financially speaking I would have to say that McCain is. Who is better for the country as far as national security, I would have to say McCain is as well. If you ask who will give more government hand outs then yes, Sen. Obama is at the top of that list for sure.
The top 10% of the country pays about 80% of the taxes and also provides in some way most of the jobs in this country. If you ask me they are towing their weight and most of ours too. In these dim economic times raising taxes on ANYONE would be a mistake. If you are trying to get people to put more money into the economy you don't take more away from them.
And yes, that woman no how big or small of a part she plays, she IS still infact a member of the Obama Camp. PERIOD! That is a fact, she works directly for them.
Apparently, it's hard for either side to find good help.
I understand it's a personal feeling. But there's a difference between not wanting her nominated and calling her a joke, and I think it's an important difference. It seems as a society we're now incapable of supporting our candidate/opinion/etc. without bashing or otherwise tearing down the other side.
It's not a matter of taking sides. She would be a joke no matter who nominated her, whether I supported that person or not. Conversely, there were lots of highly qualified, highly intelligent people Sen. McCain could've picked, none of whom I would've "bashed or otherwise [torn] down," but Gov. Palin isn't one of them. She's just laughably unqualified for the job.
Luko:
To be sure, I think she was a very poor choice for VP and she's had some lame answers, etc. But that doesn't make her a joke or a bad person.
I didn't say she was a bad person, and I disagree with the first half: i think it does make her a joke. A vice presidential candidate who can't speak a coherent English sentence in an interview -- even an adverse interview -- is a joke. A vp candidate who can't name a SCOTUS decision other than Roe v. Wade is a joke. A vp candidate who can't accurately describe the constitutional duties of the vp is the very definition of a joke. A really bad joke.
I don't say that with a harsh tone in my voice. It's just an observation of reality as I see it. I have certain minimal requirements for anybody who wants to represent me in high public office. Gov. Palin doesn't even come close to meeting them. To me, that makes her -- as a vp nominee -- a joke.
I would say she's a joke, she doesn't even know the VP's job, she doesn't answer questions, she totally screwed over her alaskan town, and she certainly doesn't have the best interest of this nation.
Basically which VP candidate **** up worse on a question isn't the issue here. The major issue is who is better for the country and financially speaking I would have to say that McCain is. Who is better for the country as far as national security, I would have to say McCain is as well. If you ask who will give more government hand outs then yes, Sen. Obama is at the top of that list for sure.
The top 10% of the country pays about 80% of the taxes and also provides in some way most of the jobs in this country. If you ask me they are towing their weight and most of ours too. In these dim economic times raising taxes on ANYONE would be a mistake. If you are trying to get people to put more money into the economy you don't take more away from them.
I'm not sure how you can say mccain would be better for any of the above? McCain at least to me really showed his true colors over the last several weeks, I mean the negativity on his campaign makes me sick, his choice in the VP is horrible, and the guy probably won't make it a full 4 years without any medical incidents. and do you really want palin in the hot seat?
I would say she's a joke, she doesn't even know the VP's job
Neither does Biden, and he's served with how many VP's in the Senate? It's crazy that Biden gets a pass on every gaffe he makes while Palin is picked apart.
phobicsquirrel:
she doesn't answer questions
She does exactly what all politicans are trained to do, some just do it better than others. Bill Clinton was a master at answering the question he wanted to answer instead of the question asked.
phobicsquirrel:
she totally screwed over her alaskan town, and she certainly doesn't have the best interest of this nation.
These are very subjective.
phobicsquirrel:
the guy probably won't make it a full 4 years without any medical incidents. and do you really want palin in the hot seat?
I would much rather have the chance that Palin ends up as President than the certainty that Obama will. Neither are ready, neither have the experience. At least Palin does have some executive experience. I can't believe that either way we will be electing a Senator as President, recent history has heavily favored Governors over legislators.
It's crazy that Biden gets a pass on every gaffe he makes
I was watching one of the cable news outlets last night -- MSNBC, I think -- and they made quite a bid deal out of Biden's recent gaffes. Just sayin'.
Scrambler:
At least Palin does have some executive experience.
I'm never quite sure what this means, or why it seems to be decisive for so many people. Let's say Bill Gates was looking for someone to take over as CEO of Microsoft. Let's say his choices were me or Joe the Plumber. Joe runs his own business, so he's got executive experience. I have none. OTOH, I'm a software architect, so I understand information technology and enterprise-level computing. Joe doesn't. Who is Bill's best bet?
Put differently, say you need, I don't know, an emergency appendectomy, and there's no doctor available. You have to choose between somebody a couple years out of physical therapy school, and somebody who's been a hospital administrator for 5 years. Who do you pick?
At least Palin does have some executive experience.
I'm never quite sure what this means, or why it seems to be decisive for so many people. Let's say Bill Gates was looking for someone to take over as CEO of Microsoft. Let's say his choices were me or Joe the Plumber. Joe runs his own business, so he's got executive experience. I have none. OTOH, I'm a software architect, so I understand information technology and enterprise-level computing. Joe doesn't. Who is Bill's best bet?
I'd say Joe the Plumber is Bill's best bet. At this point, the person running the company doesn't need to know how to write software, they need to know how to manage a staff, keep a budget, and delegate authority.
urbino:
Put differently, say you need, I don't know, an emergency appendectomy, and there's no doctor available. You have to choose between somebody a couple years out of physical therapy school, and somebody who's been a hospital administrator for 5 years. Who do you pick?
I'd say the hospital adminstrator, Dr. Cuddy is hot!
You don't think Joe would need to know how to make a budget, that is, decide where to allocate the company's spending? Set strategic direction? Pick the people to delegate to? That sort of thing?
I do think he would need to know those things, but I think running even a small company would better prepare him to do that than having technical knowledge of the product.
You don't think in order to make those decisions wisely he would need to have some knowledge of the IT industry? Of where things are trending? Of what the newest web standards say? Of what competitors are doing? Of the relative advantages and disadvantages of various approaches to solving IT problems?
ISTM that if he's going to make any kind of strategic decisions and then set budgeting priorities to steer the company toward them, he needs to know something about the industry in which his company operates. Otherwise, he's completely at the mercy of his advisers. And if he doesn't know anything about his industry, he can't tell who else does or doesn't, so he can't tell a good adviser from a crappy one.
Joe can run his plumbing business because he knows enough about plumbing to be able to tell when a vendor is selling snake oil, or when an employee's explanation for a screw-up is bs, or whether the building standards in a certain place require copper pipe or he can use PVC, etc. He can't do any of that in the software industry. So despite his executive experience running a small plumbing business, he can't delegate effectively because he doesn't know who he can delegate to. He can't manage his staff because they all know more about his job than he does. He can't make a budget because he doesn't know which direction his company should go.
Hasn't an executive in that position been reduced to an extremely well paid secretary with a ledger book and a rubber stamp?
The example we're talking about here would be an extreme case. Ideally the person applying to run the company has SOME idea of the industry, but I think it's easier and quicker to learn the nuts and bolts than it is to learn the management skills and experience.
I think that depends immensely on the complexity of the industry you're getting into. If it's a simple industry, there are only a few nuts and bolts and you can learn them quickly. If it's a complex industry, you can't.
Let's compare my example to the political campaign.
In my example, Joe is moving from leading a small plumbing business to leading a software business that's worth more than most countries. That's a big jump in both scale and complexity, and the two industries share almost no terminology and are very dissimilar.
In the election, Sarah Palin would be moving from being governor of Alaska to, potentially, president of the United States. IMHO, that's a much bigger jump that Joe's. Alaska is one of the least populous states. Alaska has almost no ethnic diversity; it's one of the whitest states in the union. Alaskans earn more than most other Americans do. Alaska gets more federal dollars per capita than almost any other state. Insofar as Alaska has an energy problem, it's the opposite of the rest of the country's. That is, Alaska is an energy-rich state with, because of its small population, comparatively low energy consumption. America as a nation is just the opposite. As an energy-rich state, Alaska's concern is to keep energy prices high; America's concern is to keep them low.
There's also the fact that, because of the combination of low population and high energy wealth, Alaska's economy works almost nothing like any other state's, or the nation's. (Truly, if you're concerned about creeping socialism, the state gov't of Alaska ought to be at the top of your list of worries.)
In short, I don't think running Alaska has much in common with running the U.S. It's a huuuuuge jump in both scale and complexity. Much bigger than the jump from Joe's Plumbing to Microsoft, especially in terms of complexity.
So, if anything, I think Gov. Palin's executive experience from running Alaska is likely to be even less useful to her in the White House than Joe's experience running his plumbing business would be to him as CEO of Microsoft. Her ignorance of national and international policy just swamps whatever benefits her executive experience provides. She'd be totally at the mercy of her advisers, who, again, she wouldn't be able to choose well because she knows so little about what she's getting into.
That's the upshot, for me. I don't think she knows enough about federal policymaking or international relations and economics for the skills she picked up from her executive experience to do her any good. That's why I don't think the executive experience argument works. At all. Even a little.
Put differently, say you need, I don't know, an emergency appendectomy, and there's no doctor available. You have to choose between somebody a couple years out of physical therapy school, and somebody who's been a hospital administrator for 5 years. Who do you pick?
Did either of them stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night?
scrambler:
Ideally the person applying to run the company has SOME idea of the industry
Did I miss something? Since when does Joe the Plumber have any experience whatsoever running a plumbing business -- or a lemonade stand, for that matter? Last I heard he worked for a guy who once casually mentioned that maybe someday he'd sell him the business which isn't currently even making half of what Joe the Plumber claimed it was making when he confronted Obama.
i think that is a piss poor argument. you dont have to own a business to know you want to. you also dont have to have a PhD in economics to know that more taxes on anyone is bad.
not only that but it isnt the guy asking the question that is the problem, but the response given. redisribution of wealth has never and never will make anyone rich.
Ideally the person applying to run the company has SOME idea of the industry
I think that was his point
Yes, but my point is that while having both executive and practical experience would be ideal, if I had to choose one or the other, I'd choose the candidate with the executive experience.
dutyje:
Did I miss something? Since when does Joe the Plumber have any experience whatsoever running a plumbing business -- or a lemonade stand, for that matter? Last I heard he worked for a guy who once casually mentioned that maybe someday he'd sell him the business which isn't currently even making half of what Joe the Plumber claimed it was making when he confronted Obama.
We aren't specifically talking about "the" Joe the Plumber, we are talking about the idea of "a" Joe the Plumber as an analogy in the discussion about which VP candidate sucks more.
We aren't specifically talking about "the" Joe the Plumber, we are talking about the idea of "a" Joe the Plumber as an analogy in the discussion about which VP candidate sucks more.
When you put it that way, I have to admit that, if it were up to my imagination, Sarah definitely, ahem, sucks more.
I thought Monica was the one that sucked?? Wasn't that her name?? haha Anyway, the analogy of Joe the Plumber doesn't fit at all because Sarah Palin, if you want to admit it or not, has experience in the EXECUTIVE BRANCH of the governement. Obama, Biden, AND McCain don't. Yes it is on a much smaller scale, but Obama made the statement that running his campaign has made him most qualified to run the country because he has to budget a large amount of money. If you want to look at it that was, Palin has had to run a budget about 32 times larger a month than Sen. Obama. Obama has this wonderful John Lennon vision of the world where if we don't seem like a threat noone will bother us. The problem is this is the real world! The jews didn't pose a threat to Hitler, neither did France, or Poland... There are evil tyrants out ther that we will have to deal with over time plus the constant threat from Islamic extremists. Obama supports the same old tired attitude of appeasment that is spouted by the Democrats time and time again. I believe Ronald Reagan said it best when he said
"Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong."
- Ronald Reagan
The amount of campaign funds for Sen. Obama as of Sept 30th was $133,649,692
Thats a pretty good amount of money, but I don't understand how that makes him qualified to be president when the average yearly budget for the state of Alaska is $11 BILLION! Plus some 29,000 + state employees... And he claims Sarah Palin doesn't have the experience to be the VICE President???
Its funny when 90% of the Democrats attacks are also true about their cadidates!
I don't know what benefit you're talking about, but most liberals I've ever known are as normal, pleasant, and reasonable as most people. Some are loudmouth know-it-alls, and so are some conservatives.
I had to go back to this comment because of a news story I found that pretty much sums it up.
"Ghosts, goblins, gargoyles . . . and Sarah Palin hanging by a noose?
That's the latest imagery of the Republican vice presidential candidate and her running mate John McCain on display at a West Hollywood home that has been decorated for Halloween.
The outdoor decor features a mannequin dressed as Palin, wearing a red business suit, eyeglasses and brunette beehive wig, hanging by a noose off the chimney. Right above her, a devilish John McCain emerges from the chimney with paper flames surrounding him.
Some neighbors say it's just wrong to depict a vice presidential candidate that way.
Chad Michael Morisette, who lives in the house, told CBS 2 News that the effigy would be out of bounds at any other time of year, but it's within the spirit of Halloween.
"It should be seen as art, and as within the month of October. It's Halloween, it's time to be scary, it's time to be spooky," Morisette said.
Several locals and tour buses have swung by the house to snap photos of the scene, and some gawkers say it is humorous. Morisette acknowledged to FOX 11 news that had he depicted Barack Obama in the same scene, it would not have gone over as well, because the history of a hanged black man in America is a lot more intense than a hanged white woman."
He can say its a joke all he wants, but it is just sick. If they would have put her being humped by a moose or something, then ok, thats a joke. But to depict her being lynched from this mans house is beyond funny and it damn sure isn't art...
Comments
As for Obama's readiness on foreign policy, I just disagree. I started out the GOP primaries rooting for McCain, but he's talked himself out of my support. Obama's approach to foreign policy, OTOH, has a lot of what we used to call conservatism in it.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/03/biden-gets-veep-role-wrong/
The top 10% of the country pays about 80% of the taxes and also provides in some way most of the jobs in this country. If you ask me they are towing their weight and most of ours too. In these dim economic times raising taxes on ANYONE would be a mistake. If you are trying to get people to put more money into the economy you don't take more away from them.
Put differently, say you need, I don't know, an emergency appendectomy, and there's no doctor available. You have to choose between somebody a couple years out of physical therapy school, and somebody who's been a hospital administrator for 5 years. Who do you pick?
ISTM that if he's going to make any kind of strategic decisions and then set budgeting priorities to steer the company toward them, he needs to know something about the industry in which his company operates. Otherwise, he's completely at the mercy of his advisers. And if he doesn't know anything about his industry, he can't tell who else does or doesn't, so he can't tell a good adviser from a crappy one.
Joe can run his plumbing business because he knows enough about plumbing to be able to tell when a vendor is selling snake oil, or when an employee's explanation for a screw-up is bs, or whether the building standards in a certain place require copper pipe or he can use PVC, etc. He can't do any of that in the software industry. So despite his executive experience running a small plumbing business, he can't delegate effectively because he doesn't know who he can delegate to. He can't manage his staff because they all know more about his job than he does. He can't make a budget because he doesn't know which direction his company should go.
Hasn't an executive in that position been reduced to an extremely well paid secretary with a ledger book and a rubber stamp?
Let's compare my example to the political campaign.
In my example, Joe is moving from leading a small plumbing business to leading a software business that's worth more than most countries. That's a big jump in both scale and complexity, and the two industries share almost no terminology and are very dissimilar.
In the election, Sarah Palin would be moving from being governor of Alaska to, potentially, president of the United States. IMHO, that's a much bigger jump that Joe's. Alaska is one of the least populous states. Alaska has almost no ethnic diversity; it's one of the whitest states in the union. Alaskans earn more than most other Americans do. Alaska gets more federal dollars per capita than almost any other state. Insofar as Alaska has an energy problem, it's the opposite of the rest of the country's. That is, Alaska is an energy-rich state with, because of its small population, comparatively low energy consumption. America as a nation is just the opposite. As an energy-rich state, Alaska's concern is to keep energy prices high; America's concern is to keep them low.
There's also the fact that, because of the combination of low population and high energy wealth, Alaska's economy works almost nothing like any other state's, or the nation's. (Truly, if you're concerned about creeping socialism, the state gov't of Alaska ought to be at the top of your list of worries.)
In short, I don't think running Alaska has much in common with running the U.S. It's a huuuuuge jump in both scale and complexity. Much bigger than the jump from Joe's Plumbing to Microsoft, especially in terms of complexity.
So, if anything, I think Gov. Palin's executive experience from running Alaska is likely to be even less useful to her in the White House than Joe's experience running his plumbing business would be to him as CEO of Microsoft. Her ignorance of national and international policy just swamps whatever benefits her executive experience provides. She'd be totally at the mercy of her advisers, who, again, she wouldn't be able to choose well because she knows so little about what she's getting into.
That's the upshot, for me. I don't think she knows enough about federal policymaking or international relations and economics for the skills she picked up from her executive experience to do her any good. That's why I don't think the executive experience argument works. At all. Even a little.
Also, I like cigars.
I think that was his point
not only that but it isnt the guy asking the question that is the problem, but the response given. redisribution of wealth has never and never will make anyone rich.
"Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong."
- Ronald Reagan
Thats a pretty good amount of money, but I don't understand how that makes him qualified to be president when the average yearly budget for the state of Alaska is $11 BILLION! Plus some 29,000 + state employees... And he claims Sarah Palin doesn't have the experience to be the VICE President???
Its funny when 90% of the Democrats attacks are also true about their cadidates!
...just a thought.
I had to go back to this comment because of a news story I found that pretty much sums it up.
"Ghosts, goblins, gargoyles . . . and Sarah Palin hanging by a noose?
That's the latest imagery of the Republican vice presidential candidate and her running mate John McCain on display at a West Hollywood home that has been decorated for Halloween.
The outdoor decor features a mannequin dressed as Palin, wearing a red business suit, eyeglasses and brunette beehive wig, hanging by a noose off the chimney. Right above her, a devilish John McCain emerges from the chimney with paper flames surrounding him.
Some neighbors say it's just wrong to depict a vice presidential candidate that way.
Chad Michael Morisette, who lives in the house, told CBS 2 News that the effigy would be out of bounds at any other time of year, but it's within the spirit of Halloween.
"It should be seen as art, and as within the month of October. It's Halloween, it's time to be scary, it's time to be spooky," Morisette said.
Several locals and tour buses have swung by the house to snap photos of the scene, and some gawkers say it is humorous. Morisette acknowledged to FOX 11 news that had he depicted Barack Obama in the same scene, it would not have gone over as well, because the history of a hanged black man in America is a lot more intense than a hanged white woman."
He can say its a joke all he wants, but it is just sick. If they would have put her being humped by a moose or something, then ok, thats a joke. But to depict her being lynched from this mans house is beyond funny and it damn sure isn't art...