[a4audi08]

Here is a snippet of the Couric-Palin interview - it is quite gory.

Let me just say that even though I come from a Democratic family, I supported McCain for president in 2000. I would have voted for him over Gore if he won the GOP primary. I remember following that primary and thinking "this man should be president." He put his country's interests over his personal and political goals. Obviously that changed over the next couple of years as he slowly backtracked on every issue in order to gain the support of the conservative wing of his party. Whatever. Every politician "flip flops." McCain already telegraphed this in his autobiography "Faith of My Fathers," where he admitted:

"I didn't decide to run for president to start a national crusade for the political reforms I believed in or to run a campaign as if it were some grand act of patriotism. In truth, I wanted to be president because it had become my ambition to be president. . . . In truth, I'd had the ambition for a long time."

It wasn't until his selection of Palin that I realized McCain has not only turned back on the millions of voters that supported him and called him a political "maverick," but his country. In the last 45 years, we've had, according to my count, 3 times when the VP has had to step in to lead our government. If god forbid that were to happen, the most important thing that our political leadership needs to do is to ensure the confidence of the public. Sarah Palin cannot inspire that confidence. She can barely ramble through a softball interview without sounding like Miss South Carolina. McCain choosing her to possible be ONE step from the presidency is an affront to the intelligence of the American people. It places this country in danger if she is ever called upon to act as president.

 

[Nicesuit]

Perhaps she got lost in wondering how Katie Couric still has a job?

 

[a4audi08]

Perhaps she got lost in wondering how Katie Couric still has a job?

:icon_smile_big:

I hear she's getting her groove back. This election is the gift that keeps on giving.

 

[16412]

Perhaps she got lost in wondering how Katie Couric still has a job?

That is my thought too.

 

[Concordia]

That is my thought too.

As odd as that notion is, it shouldn't render so utterly stupid a person with legitimate aspirations to the Presidency.

Aren't you glad she wasn't President last week?

 

[16412]

As odd as that notion is, it shouldn't render so utterly stupid a person with legitimate aspirations to the Presidency.

Aren't you glad she wasn't President last week?

I would rather have a bumbling fool heading the right way guide us than a skilled idot taking us the wrong way. So, who is more foolish the person taking us the right way? Or, the person taking us the wrong way?

Or, should I say "Thank God Katie is not in the race!!"

 

[Terpoxon]

"Who is more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows him?"

Sorry I just couldn't resist the chance to quote Obi-wan Kenobi.

 

[eagle2250]

Perhaps she got lost in wondering how Katie Couric still has a job?

LOL! Indeed, there is much truth, as well as good humor, in your words.

 

[MinnMD]

Experience

Palin and Obama have similar levels of experience. Obama's been in the Senate about 150 days. The rest of the time he's been running his Presidential campaign.

MinnMD

 

[hurling frootmig]

Palin and Obama have similar levels of experience. Obama's been in the Senate about 150 days. The rest of the time he's been running his Presidential campaign.

MinnMD

Obama served in the Illinois senate for a much longer time than Palin was Mayor of her small town. I would also point out that Obama's state senate district was about 750,000 people which means that he represented more people than Palin has as Govenor of Alaksa. I believe Illinois has about 13 million people right now that he represents along with Dick Durbin in the Senate.

There's no real comparison to their experience level, educational experiences, or even work experience. Obama has a much more impressive background.

 

[nolan50410]

The fact is neither Obama or Palin have as much experience as our presidents normally possess when they take office. The difference is Obama has been on the national stage for 4 years and has served those 4 years in the U.S. Senate, where he gained foreign policy experience and learned enough to at least come across as knowledgable on foreign policy affairs. Palin simply comes across as a beauty pageant queen answering a tough question from Mario Lopez. If McCain does win, I hope he stays healthy.

 

[tabasco]

I would rather have a bumbling fool heading the right way guide us than a skilled idot taking us the wrong way. So, who is more foolish the person taking us the right way? Or, the person taking us the wrong way?

Or, should I say "Thank God W is not in the race!!"

I think you mistyped.

 

[hurling frootmig]

The fact is neither Obama or Palin have as much experience as our presidents normally possess when they take office. The difference is Obama has been on the national stage for 4 years and has served those 4 years in the U.S. Senate, where he gained foreign policy experience and learned enough to at least come across as knowledgable on foreign policy affairs. Palin simply comes across as a beauty pageant queen answering a tough question from Mario Lopez. If McCain does win, I hope he stays healthy.

Obama has more years of experience than Reagan had before he came into office. We've had a number of Presidents who have had less experience in elected office than Obama.

 

[nolan50410]

Reagan spent 8 years governing the largest state in the country. I can't really imagine if anything prepares you for the presidency more then that does.

 

[Sartre]

Obama has more years of experience than Reagan had before he came into office. We've had a number of Presidents who have had less experience in elected office than Obama.

This is the kind of sound bite that doesn't help the discussion. It is a discussion, isn't it? Or is it just a recitation of talking points?

C'mon, buddy, Reagan was president of the screen actors guild for something like a decade and then was governor of the largest state in the country for two terms.

The fact that we've had other presidents who've had less experience in elected office than Obama isn't persuasive a little bit. Tell me: were they good presidents or bad ones? It could be argued that W had no more experience than Barack; surely you're not using that as an argument?

I'm an undecided. If I vote for Barack, it will be in spite of his lack of experience. Let's all man up and admit that and move on.

tjs

 

[TBOWES]

Obama has more years of experience than Reagan had before he came into office. We've had a number of Presidents who have had less experience in elected office than Obama.

You are kidding, right? So the Governor thing that Reagan did doesn't count. "Jeeeze", what don't you get.

 

[hurling frootmig]

This is the kind of sound bite that doesn't help the discussion. It is a discussion, isn't it? Or is it just a recitation of talking points?

C'mon, buddy, Reagan was president of the screen actors guild for something like a decade and then was governor of the largest state in the country for two terms.

The fact that we've had other presidents who've had less experience in elected office than Obama isn't persuasive a little bit. Tell me: were they good presidents or bad ones? It could be argued that W had no more experience than Barack; surely you're not using that as an argument?

I'm an undecided. If I vote for Barack, it will be in spite of his lack of experience. Let's all man up and admit that and move on.

tjs

I'm not putting down Reagan. Arguing that the screen actors guild side of things is amusing though. Watch out for Melissa Gilbert in 2012! :icon_smile_big:

George W. Bush was essentially a one and a half term Governor (in that he nearly served six years).

Here's the list of past Presidents and their previous elected office experience:

George W. Bush 6 years Governor Texas
Bill Clinton 13-14 years Atty General Ark/Gov Ark.
George H.W. Bush 12 years - U.S. Rep (4) VP (8)
Ronald Reagan - 8 years Gov CA
Jimmy Carter - 8 years - Gov GA (4) - GA Sen (4)
Richard Nixon - 16 years - US House (4) - US Sen (4) - VP (8)
LBJ - 28 years - US House (14) - US Sen (12) - VP (2)
JFK - 14 years - US House (6) - US Sen (8)
IKE - none
Truman - 10 years - US Sen (10) - VP (3 1/2 months)
FDR - 6 years - Gov NY (4) - NY House (2)
Hoover - none - ironically was secretary of commerce
Coolidge - 7 years - VP (2) - Gov MA (2) - Lt. Gov MA (3)
Harding - 12 years - OH Sen (4) - Lt. Gov OH (2) - US Sen (6)

As you can see we have had Presidents all over the board since the 1920's. Harding with 12 years of experience is generally considered one of our worst Presidents. FDR and Truman receive the highest marks from historians of the Presidents listed here. A number of Presidents including George H.W. Bush, Eisenhower, FDR, and Hoover spent time serving the government either in the military or in various capacities within the government in non-elected capacities.

George W. Bush at 6 years experience prior to entering office has turned out to be a rather poor President. IKE was top ten. Truman was top five. FDR probably comes in 3rd with historians. Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover were all lousy with Harding being the worst.

I would argue that Carter and George H.W. Bush had Presidencies that were equally lousy.

Reagan and Clinton come in about the same in my estimation. Each had to follow dismal one term Presidents. Reagan put us in debt pretty far. Clinton had personal issues. I would place each of them lower than IKE.

I did not include Ford. But he had a wonderful career in the house. I always rather liked the man as he seemed to be a pretty decent guy.

LBJ had the most experience at 28 years which surpasses even McCain. He ascended to the presidency though. Generally thought to have started out well and finished poorly.

If you continue this exercise looking at all of the persons who have been President you will find that there appears to be little correlation between experience and the quality of their service.

 

[MinnMD]

Experience

Voting "present" in the state legislature doesn't count much for experience.

MinnMD

 

[hurling frootmig]

Voting "present" in the state legislature doesn't count much for experience.

MinnMD

We've gone over this once perhaps you missed it. Voting "present" is rather common in the Illinois legislature. It's a practice that is used by members of both parties for a variety of reasons. It's a shame some people parrot the same old line instead of taking the time to look into something. All it shows is your ignorance of how the legislative process works (and at times doesn't work) in Illinois.

 

[Relayer]

We've gone over this once perhaps you missed it. Voting "present" is rather common in the Illinois legislature. It's a practice that is used by members of both parties for a variety of reasons. It's a shame some people parrot the same old line instead of taking the time to look into something. All it shows is your ignorance of how the legislative process works (and at times doesn't work) in Illinois.

You've spun that tale already. Nobody bought it then, either. Illinois senators often duck votes to avoid making inconvenient commitments that might make them look bad in the future or anger some of their support. We get it. Not good, even if it is common practice in Illinois.