 
     |
| Palin's Executive Experience (Page 6/8) |
|
aceman
|
SEP 29, 01:26 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Formula88:
I don't want to talk about her specific qualifications. Rather, what's everyone's opinion on what kind of experience you get being a state Governor vs. a Senator or Congresscritter.
It occurs to me, most of our recent Presidents have been former Governors, and not come from the Senate.
George W. Bush - Gov. TX
Bill Clinton - Gov. AR
George HW Bush - House of Representatives -> VP
Ronald Reagan - Gov. CA
Jimmy Carter - Gov. GA
Gerald Ford - House of Representatives -> VP -> assumed Presidency after Nixon's resignation. Never won a national election.
Richard Nixon - Congress -> VP
Thoughts? I'm talking more about general experience coming from a Gov. position rather than this election specifically. (trying to avoid some political flames - even if in vain)
|
|
And what you listed here are prime examples of it really doesn't have a whole Hell of a lot of impact of where you came from.
Most would consider Carter a poor President. Most would consider Reagan a great president. BOTH GOVERNORS.
Most would consider Bush subpar and Clinton above par. BOTH GOVERNORS.
Most would consider Kennedy a great President. Never was a Governor or VP or even a General or Admiral!
Most would consider Lincoln a great President. He had about as much experience as Obama, Todd!
Whether your experience comes from being a Governor, VP, or Congressman or even a President of a College does not ultimately determine if you are qualified to be President. There is no logical argument for this to debate.[This message has been edited by aceman (edited 09-29-2008).]
|
|
|
|
rogergarrison
|
SEP 29, 02:46 PM
|
|
From what Ive heard, Obama 'experience' as leading anything is probably a tag football game when he was a kid. At least Palin has actually been voted in to actually lead something (state governor). Im still leading a write in campaign for Paris myself. Shes at least a born leader at some things. ie/ slut, leading the female 'brat pack', getting everyone in the country to start saying ' thats hot'. 
|
|
|
|
CenTexIndy
|
SEP 29, 03:03 PM
|
|
I watched Sarah Palin’s first national TV interview with mixed emotions: sorrow, pity, incredulity—and fear. Speaking variously in platitudes, non sequiturs, and rote-memorized talking points, the woman asking us to put her a heartbeat away from the presidency—and a 72-year-old cancer survivor’s heartbeat, at that—gave the impression of someone who had never given a moment’s thought to these matters before two weeks ago. The most excruciating moment came when ABC’s Charles Gibson asked the Alaska governor whether she agreed with “the Bush Doctrine.” Staring back like a moose in headlights, Palin first fished for hints—“In what respect, Charlie?”—and then lamely offered up, “His worldview?” I’m not saying our presidents need advanced degrees in international relations, but is it asking too much that Palin at least have heard of the basic underpinning of American foreign policy in the 21st century?
But maybe that’s utterly unfair. The term “Bush Doctrine” in fact has had several meanings over the years—from Bush’s threat to treat states that harbor terrorists as harshly as states that sponsor terrorism, to the goal of spreading democracy. So Palin was totally within her rights to ask Gibson for clarification. Palin probably could have answered some things better. But all in all, she did just fine. On the land-mine-laden topics of Pakistan and Israel, she gave diplomatic answers; she refused to be cornered into either denying global warming or conceding it’s entirely the product of human activity; and she impressed many with her no-surrender, take-no-crap conservative sense. Besides, at the end of the day, it’s Palin’s refreshing attitude, not any wonkish command of detail, that might just take McCain/Palin to victory in November.
Now, to many Alaskans that’s a disquieting prospect. Palin’s supporters describe her as a crusading reformer who “lifted Alaska out of a mire of corruption.” But her own style of governing has often marred her reform credentials. A review of her record found a striking tendency to use the power of her office to reward friends and punish enemies. She appointed several high school classmates to important posts, including an old pal to head the State Division of Agriculture whose only qualification was “a childhood love of cows.” She also displayed a paranoid style and a penchant for secrecy, deliberately conducting state business via her personal Yahoo e-mail account, so it wouldn’t be subject to Freedom of Information requests.
Yet, Reformers are often prickly and driven. If you’re going to take on the establishment, a little “messianic zeal” comes in handy. Such figures sometimes have a tendency to be paranoid and vindictive—because, after all, their enemies are enemies of the great cause. But if properly channeled, their vision and passion can accomplish great things.
But some of Palin’s claims to be a pork-busting fiscal conservative are also crumbling under scrutiny. We already knew that her claim to have said “thanks but no thanks” to the notorious Bridge to Nowhere pork project wasn’t quite accurate. It now turns out that, contrary to John McCain’s assertion that as governor Palin had never requested federal earmarks, she did ask for $453 million over the last two years—including funds for a study of seal DNA.
It’s not Palin’s record as governor that’s starting to concern even some conservatives. Rather, it’s the growing sense that she simply hasn’t acquired enough experience, enough wisdom, to take on the critical role of vice president. Palin has been presented as the ultimate small-town renegade rising from the frontier. I would be more seduced by such a prospect if I hadn’t just lived through the last eight years. Palin, like President Bush, exhibits a worrying tendency to compensate for her lack of experience with brashness and excessive decisiveness. Experience isn’t everything, of course, but it does create prudence—the ability to wade through complexities and make smart decisions. And remember, democracy is not average people selecting average leaders. It is average people with the wisdom to select the best prepared.
|
|
|
|
2.5
|
SEP 29, 03:08 PM
|
|
|
And then theres Obama running for not vice, but president and just as lacking if not more in experience. [This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 09-29-2008).]
|
|
|
|
FieroFanatic13
|
SEP 29, 03:12 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by CenTexIndy:
...snip...
She also displayed a paranoid style and a penchant for secrecy, deliberately conducting state business via her personal Yahoo e-mail account, so it wouldn’t be subject to Freedom of Information requests.
...snip...
Rather, it’s the growing sense that she simply hasn’t acquired enough experience, enough wisdom, to take on the critical role of vice president.
|
|
Just out of curiosity, where did you get that she used her private e-mail to conduct state business? I've not heard a single report to confirm this even though her account was actually hacked. Only suggestions that the mere existence of a personal account somehow "raised concerns that she might be." Did something else come to light?
And on the second line I left up, how exactly does the presidential candidate on the other side have more experience than Palin? Wisdom I can't debate, but experience?
|
|
|
|
randye
|
SEP 29, 03:17 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by CenTexIndy:
I watched Sarah Palin’s first national TV interview with mixed emotions: sorrow, pity, incredulity—and fear. Speaking variously in platitudes, non sequiturs, and rote-memorized talking points, the woman asking us to put her a heartbeat away from the presidency—and a 72-year-old cancer survivor’s heartbeat, at that—gave the impression of someone who had never given a moment’s thought to these matters before two weeks ago. The most excruciating moment came when ABC’s Charles Gibson asked the Alaska governor whether she agreed with “the Bush Doctrine.” Staring back like a moose in headlights, Palin first fished for hints—“In what respect, Charlie?”—and then lamely offered up, “His worldview?” I’m not saying our presidents need advanced degrees in international relations, but is it asking too much that Palin at least have heard of the basic underpinning of American foreign policy in the 21st century?
But maybe that’s utterly unfair. The term “Bush Doctrine” in fact has had several meanings over the years—from Bush’s threat to treat states that harbor terrorists as harshly as states that sponsor terrorism, to the goal of spreading democracy. So Palin was totally within her rights to ask Gibson for clarification. Palin probably could have answered some things better. But all in all, she did just fine. On the land-mine-laden topics of Pakistan and Israel, she gave diplomatic answers; she refused to be cornered into either denying global warming or conceding it’s entirely the product of human activity; and she impressed many with her no-surrender, take-no-crap conservative sense. Besides, at the end of the day, it’s Palin’s refreshing attitude, not any wonkish command of detail, that might just take McCain/Palin to victory in November.
Now, to many Alaskans that’s a disquieting prospect. Palin’s supporters describe her as a crusading reformer who “lifted Alaska out of a mire of corruption.” But her own style of governing has often marred her reform credentials. A review of her record found a striking tendency to use the power of her office to reward friends and punish enemies. She appointed several high school classmates to important posts, including an old pal to head the State Division of Agriculture whose only qualification was “a childhood love of cows.” She also displayed a paranoid style and a penchant for secrecy, deliberately conducting state business via her personal Yahoo e-mail account, so it wouldn’t be subject to Freedom of Information requests.
Yet, Reformers are often prickly and driven. If you’re going to take on the establishment, a little “messianic zeal” comes in handy. Such figures sometimes have a tendency to be paranoid and vindictive—because, after all, their enemies are enemies of the great cause. But if properly channeled, their vision and passion can accomplish great things.
But some of Palin’s claims to be a pork-busting fiscal conservative are also crumbling under scrutiny. We already knew that her claim to have said “thanks but no thanks” to the notorious Bridge to Nowhere pork project wasn’t quite accurate. It now turns out that, contrary to John McCain’s assertion that as governor Palin had never requested federal earmarks, she did ask for $453 million over the last two years—including funds for a study of seal DNA.
It’s not Palin’s record as governor that’s starting to concern even some conservatives. Rather, it’s the growing sense that she simply hasn’t acquired enough experience, enough wisdom, to take on the critical role of vice president. Palin has been presented as the ultimate small-town renegade rising from the frontier. I would be more seduced by such a prospect if I hadn’t just lived through the last eight years. Palin, like President Bush, exhibits a worrying tendency to compensate for her lack of experience with brashness and excessive decisiveness. Experience isn’t everything, of course, but it does create prudence—the ability to wade through complexities and make smart decisions. And remember, democracy is not average people selecting average leaders. It is average people with the wisdom to select the best prepared. |
|
Psssssssssst...
If you're going to quote an editorial that some of us have already read a few weeks ago, please give an attribution
|
|
|
|
Toddster
|
SEP 29, 03:19 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Formula88:
I'm not going to choose sides. Regardless of who make the first comment, both of you kept it going. Ace may have started with the insults, but neither one of you was willing to let the other get the last word. |
|
Again, wrong. I haven't acknowledged anything he has posted in the last 5 or 6 posts. And I am not asking you to take a side, just to point out the facts. Ace made an unprovoked attack and deserves to be rebuked for it. You are not obligated to do so publically but do not interject yourself into the disussion if you have no intentions of being even handed.
At least you gave him a negative. Thanks for that.[This message has been edited by Toddster (edited 09-29-2008).]
|
|
|
|
CenTexIndy
|
SEP 29, 03:21 PM
|
|
Response 1:
From United Press International, Tuesday September 16, 2008:
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and her administration's use of private e-mail accounts to conduct state business is raising questions among open government advocates.
The Anchorage Daily News reported Monday that during the 2006 campaign, Palin, a former mayor and now the Republican vice presidential nominee, pledged to be "open and transparent."
Critics have charged that the Palin administration's use of personal e-mail accounts is part of an effort to skirt state open records laws.
The governor's Yahoo account is "the most nonsensical, inane thing I've ever heard of," said Andree McLeod, who is appealing the administration's decision to withhold e-mails she requested.
"The governor sets the tone and the tone that has been set by this governor is beyond the pale," McLeod said. "Common sense tells you to use an official state e-mail account for official state business."
The governor is allowed to keep e-mails confidential if they fall into certain categories, such as "deliberative process," her press secretary, Bill McAllister, said.
"I don't hear any public clamor for access to internal communications of the governor's office," McAllister said. "I know there are some people out there blogging and talking who would like to embarrass the governor by taking an internal communication and spinning it in some fashion."
-
-
-
-
Response 2:
I have NEVER stated that Obama has any more wisdom or experience than Palin. I am simply stating what I have read of other's thoughts about her. Neither Palin nor Obama has enough experience for me.
|
|
|
|
CenTexIndy
|
SEP 29, 03:23 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by randye:
Psssssssssst...
If you're going to quote an editorial that some of us have already read a few weeks ago, please give an attribution |
|
My mistake - I should have. 
The ideas mentioned come from Fred Kaplan in Slate.com, Ellis Henican in Newsday, Charles Krauthammer in The Washington Post, Kathryn Jean Lopez in National Review Online, Jo Becker, Peter Goodman, and Michael Powell in The New York Times, David Frum in National Review Online, Laura Meckler and John Wilke in The Wall Street Journal, David Brooks in The New York Times[This message has been edited by CenTexIndy (edited 09-29-2008).]
|
|
|
|
2.5
|
SEP 29, 03:23 PM
|
|
"unprovokerd attack" cool word!
-Lightening the mood
|
|
|
|