« The Palin Proxy War | Main | More on "Executive" Experience »

August 31, 2008

Comments

Doesn't Goldfarb mean 'more executive experience than Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and John McCain put together"?

--TP

I also like the right-wing-hack argument that Palin has been in elected office longer than Obama. They are counting her time on the city council of a town with half the people of my home town. I mean, give me a break. They're not serious, are they?

They have some pride, they didn't include her PTA position in counting her elected experience...

I think I might have been class vice-president in elementary school one year, so I was in elective office even earlier.

I also kinda like this from Goldfarb: "Before Palin could even make it on stage the Obama campaign put out a petty partisan statement."

I am shocked, shocked, that a political campaign would make a partisan statement.

Of all the people you'd ever expect to do such a thing!

George W. Bush had executive experience from Texas, and from business. And an MBA.

Cheney had executive experience from running the Pentagon, and from being CEO of Halliburton.

Rumsfeld had executive experience from running the Pentagon, and corporate CEO experience.

Executive experience, in and of itself, doesn't seem to be worth much.

The most important thing a *top* executive does is hire his or her subordinates: clearly, Obama is good at this, having inherited no one's Rolodex. Compare Bush's first hire as President: Cheney, against the usual rule that you don't hire the guy doing the selection. And now McCain: Palin--never mind her merits or lack, just consider the casualness of the hire.

To add to what DCA said, also consider Palin's record of hiring folks, i.e. the officially reprimanded sexual harrasser she hired to be commissioner of public safety. Then consider her record of firing folks for personal and political reasons, both as mayor and as governor. And her record of getting caught lying about every single thing I've mentioned, with documented proof she was lying. That's not executive experience we can believe in, my friends.

dKos has been mentioning that under leadership, Alaskan state budgets has seen increases in sports complexes, but cuts for basic infrastructure like police and fire stations....

This seems like the kind of spin that cannot possibly gain traction. That is, wingnuts may repeat it to each other ad nauseum, but I have trouble imaging anyone unsure of their vote being swayed by this (or being fooled by counting years on city council of a small town as experientially equivalent to years in the US Senate).
Really, I think it's just a way for the folks at redstate to avoid having nothing to say at all (since there isn't much), or just plain breaking out into tears.

TPM noticed this on the RNC front page:

McCain Chooses Sarah Palin

Check Out NotReady08.com

Carleton, unfortunately I can see the media buying into it. After all, if Republicans are saying one thing and Democrats another, who are they to judge? Best to just go with the Republican spin as usual.

Especially when you've got "Democrats" like Ferraro agreeing with the Republicans.

I'm new to this blog and I don't want to be a lurker, so...

I'm conservative. Always been disgusted by the racist history of the Democratic plantation (George Wallace, KKK-Byrd, KKK-Hugo Black, Dixiecrats, "lynching" of Clarence Thomas, etc.) and the general sleaze (Ted-Lifeguard-Kennedy, Bill-Predator-Clinton). And, yes, I remember "I am not a crook" Nixon, and I've always been disgusted by the fiscal recklessness and general ineptitude of the Bush dynasty.

I recognize tribal politics. Democrats and Repbulicans vote for the leader of the their party, and rarely cross over ("He might be a crook. But at least he's my crook.") We're all susceptible to tribal behavior. So the instinct is to sneer at the excitement that's been generated by Palin.

I think the explanation is that McCain appears to be disgusted by the corrupt Washington politics, and Palin appears to be disgusted with corrupt Alaska politics. Even better, they've both taken action to clean up corruption. McCain has few friends in Washington politics. Palin has few friends in Alaska politics. They go together perfectly. They will certainly bring real change to Washington. They might flame out, but they'll start a fire. That's what conservatives want (me at least). I'd like D.C. to burn down and start over.

And the contrast is huge between McCain-Palin (anti-corruption soldier-turned-politician; anti-corruption Mom-turned-Governor) and Obama-Biden (big talking friend of Chicago Machine riff-raff, big-talking lifelong do-nothing politician)

You may have fooled yourself into thinking you're motivated by something higher than tribal politics, but that doesn't bear much analysis. If you're disgusted by the Dixiecrats, why are you in the party they fled to when the Democratic Party became hostile to them? And if you believe that Mr. Keating Five, who's violating the very campaign finance restrictions he wrote is a corruption fighter, I don't know what to say.

If you enjoy seeing things burn down, then McCain is probably your man, though. A McCain presidency would likely bring even more death and destruction than Bush's has. Me, I'd rather avoid that.

now I was editor of my high school lit mag. Do I get to be president next?

Fledermaus-

I was assistant manager of a video store for about a year and a half. Can i be your VP?

dfp-

i appreciate someone like you leaving a comment on an admittedly "lefty" blog, because its always good to hear differing viewpoints. and i appreciated the civil tone--up until the very last sentence, of course.

but this line:
"McCain has few friends in Washington politics. Palin has few friends in Alaska politics." made me think conservatives live in a topsy-turvy, Alice in Wonderland world.

so having few friends is, all by itself, a virtue? McCain has worked somewhere 26 years and has made few friends? so...EVERYONE in DC is corrupt except McCain? Wow, and people say liberals deify Obama!

I think i'd like to see DC burn down sometimes, too, but since THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, politicians need at some level to work with what they've got. I would've loved to have dated Scarlett Johannsen, but i think it was a smart move not to base all my dating decisions on that eventually happening.

I would've loved to have dated Scarlett Johannsen, but i think it was a smart move not to base all my dating decisions on that eventually happening.

Wimp. I want to date Sigourney Weaver.

She (S.Weaver) would definitely be a good VP (I'd actually trust her with the top job, and I am not confusing the roles she played with her as a person).

Really? I wouldn't have thought of that. I mean, she seems like a good and thoughtful kind of person - I like what I know of her, including that she got interested in the plight of the mountain gorillas while she was playing Dian Fossey in Gorillas in the Mist and is now the chair of The Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund, and her work with the Trickle Up Program. And being President of the United States is a job that is at least 10% acting (which 10% Ronald Reagan did very well).

I am sitting here snickering a bit thinking about a real dream ticket: Martin Sheen/Sigourney Weaver. President Josiah Bartlett, Vice President Ellen Ripley, don't tell me that a large chunk of the US population wouldn't vote for them just because of that combo.

Doesn't Goldfarb mean 'more executive experience than Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and John McCain put together"?

No, no, they've got spin ready for that: McCain has executive experience because he was once a military officer. If you look in the course catalog you'll find that being a military officer decades ago awards presidential prerequisite credit, whereas running a successful presidential campaign organization doesn't.

Did you know he was a POW?

The "executive experience" meme is just laughable. My gut reaction when first seeing it on another blog was, "It's a joke, right?" Being the mayor of Bumblef*ck, Alaska doesn't qualify as "executive experience" at the US VP level. Nor does being Governor of Alaska for a short time. The lady is even more ignorant about foreign affairs than Bush was when he took office.

The real message from this pick is that McSame is erratic, impulsive, and downright addled. The choice was idiotic, and completely destroys his "Obama = inexperience" argument. That's a good thing.

Michael Scott from "The Office" has more executive experience than John McCain.

If you enjoy seeing things burn down, then McCain is probably your man, though.

Honestly, I've had moments lately when I've been following politics too much and I get so upset and disgusted that I contemplate voting for McCain just to punish America.

But the feeling passes. That only makes sense if you have the wrong-end-of-the-telescope view characteristic of terrorists. Countries are made of people, and the people who suffer the most from a crappy government don't deserve it.

Yesireeeeee......McCain really knows how to pick em. Do you think if she gets fat and ugly in his first four years, he will trade her in for a Ms. Buffalo Chip Contest winner?

Question: how many employees and how large a budget does the City of Wasilla have?

Question: how many employees and how large a budget does the City of Wasilla have?

I can answer the second half of that:

$13,705,790 in FY08

dfp21: Thanks for commenting. f you're interested in ethics reform and corruption, you might note that Obama was the Senate's point person for ethics reform, and got a pretty decent reform bill through the Senate. He wanted an even stronger bill, but was unable to get it. He did, however, defy his party's leadership to block an attempt to water it down further; as a result, Harry Reid caved, and the stronger version passed.

President Josiah Bartlett, Vice President Ellen Ripley, don't tell me that a large chunk of the US population wouldn't vote for them just because of that combo.

I don't know--they didn't seem to want to vote for District Attorney Arthur Branch . . .

Just wanted to add something: I worked for the Obama campaign this summer for a few months as a low level organizer, and can reliably inform you that the campaign at that time had ~4,000 employees. It has since decreased I would imagine (although I have not been specifically told this) because students return for school around now, but nevertheless, we are certainly looking at 2,000 + employees.

Just thought I would point that out.

"Wimp. I want to date Sigourney Weaver."

fine, i'll take an earlier obsession from my teen years--Adrienne Barbeau. satisfied?

my point still stands. :)

and Obama's position w.r.t. Harvard Law Review was... ?

Ahhhh, Jes....long ago, when I was younger and cared more, I might have been right there in line with you.

Sigourney Weaver had a room down the hall from me in the dorm in grad school. I was rarely there, because I lived with my boyfriend most of the time, but in my dim memory of those times, she was pleasant and unpretentious, just another grad student. I must have seen her perform, because I went to a lot of plays. But I don't remember all these years later.

I've got my doubts about the extent to which running a political campaign amounts to relevant executive experience, but it's somewhat irrelevant, all four of these people are successful politicians. And the four of them together do not have as much executive experience as you'd normally expect a Presidential candidate to bring to the table.

I do have to say that referring to Palin as a "former small-town mayor" is a remarkably petty way to describe a current state Governor. Perhaps she should return the favor, and make a point of referring to Obama as a former High School hall monitor; Wouldn't surprise me if he'd held the post at some time.

So Mark Zuckerberg has more executive experience than Palin, Obama, Biden, and McCain put together? Does that make him qualified to be President?

I don't really believe the Republicans honestly believe this argument. It's too ridiculous. Either they believe it, in which case they are dangerously crazy, or they don't, in which case they are dishonest about things of grave importance. Pick your poison.

This is one of those cases where the conclusion (Palin is more qualified than Biden to be President) is so ridiculous that is points out just what's wrong with the premise (that execute experience trumps any other kind of experience).

The latest story on WaPo about Troopergate makes clear that the situation is worse than initially thought - Palin should be nowhere near the White House. Not only was it a blatant and persistent abuse of power, the official that she fired even warned her and her staff that this was the case, and still they continued. I've not doubt her sister's divorce was bitter, and maybe this guy was a bad guy, but one of the basic qualifications for high office is respect for the institutions you manage, and she has failed that test spectacularly.

It's also worth pointing out that the trooper involved might not be nearly as bad as her campaign staff, and presumably now the entire apparatus of the Republican smear machine, would like you to think. As the WaPo article makes clear, the governor supposedly witnessed the death threat against her father lurking outside the window of her sister's house, but then after driving down there in the first place supposedly crept away without alerting her sister or her husband of her presence. In other words, it's a bald-faced lie concocted to support her sister's claim that the man made the threat in the first place.

Get this creationism-peddling, small-town hack off the public stage, ASAP. Given all the petty abuses of power we've seen during the past 8 years, anyone who would put this person near the White House quite simply has no love of their country, its laws, or its institutions.

It's pretty obvious what happened here. She wasn't vetted very thoroughly because her candidacy was dismissed so early, since whatever her qualities, she scores a big fat zero on the issues McCain claims to care the most about, and especially on the qualities he claimed to be looking for in a running mate. This scandal blew up in July, when they weren't even paying much attention to her. Then this week, McCain throws his toys out of the pram when everybody around him puts their collective foot down and tell him he cannot pick Lieberman or Ridge. "But I wanna steal the news on Friday! I told everybody I would steal the news on Friday!" So the vp decision was made on Wednesday, after it is clear that the Clintons are behind Obama. The old Palin file is dug on someone's suggestion, and hothead McCain goes for it. The stafffers who should be nervous probably silence their doubts because, well at least she's a voodoo-magic believing nutjob who will rally the base.

By the way she blatantly lied about opposing the bridge to nowhere, too.

PS, I want to date Sigourney Weaver too, in a hypothetical non-mentally cheating on my girlfriend way.

Hutchinson
Snowe
Collins
Meg Whitman
Fiorina
Dole
Christine Todd Whitman
Jodi Rell


Brett, could you explain how Palin is better qualified than these Republican women?

Sigourney Weaver provokes another of my favourite rants: Hollywood's insistence on casting 'hot' anoerexic women in action leads, on the premise that the young male action movie demographic will only accept a female lead if she excites their loins. These movies regularly flop, perhaps due to the improbability of skinny anoerexic girl's emaciated arms allowing her to wield enormous weapons and beat up thugs, and thus justify studio heads' decision not to cast women as leads very often.

Yet one of the greatest action leads of all time - Ripley - who happened to be a woman was plainly not arm candy, and the first two films at least were plenty successful. Conclusion: action leads need to be badass first, and eye candy of either gender second. Both is probably the most successful, from a business point of view, but if you've got to pick, pick badass.

End rant.

I think the explanation is that McCain appears to be disgusted by the corrupt Washington politics, and Palin appears to be disgusted with corrupt Alaska politics. Even better, they've both taken action to clean up corruption. McCain has few friends in Washington politics. Palin has few friends in Alaska politics. They go together perfectly. They will certainly bring real change to Washington. They might flame out, but they'll start a fire. That's what conservatives want (me at least). I'd like D.C. to burn down and start over.

I think it's quite true that Palin has that reputation. Not sure she lives up to it, though. The dribbles and drabbles I'm seeing include

a) she initiated the largest sales tax increase in her town's history to pay for a sports complex, which the town is still in debt for.
b) she fired the town's police chief and library clerk for supporting her opponent in an election
c) in her state budget, she's favored building more sports-related structures and cut budgets for police and fire stations.

Now, this may be partisan sniping, and I'm misunderstanding things. Would someone clarify those items?

Brett, could you explain how Palin is better qualified than these Republican women?

a) they are not post-rational.
b) they are all independent, experienced and tough-minded. Hence, unacceptable to John McCain who is the most blatant misogynist running for high office that I've seen in a quite a while.

Yet one of the greatest action leads of all time - Ripley - who happened to be a woman was plainly not arm candy,

Not JUST arm candy. I think she would look VERY good around my arm. Anyone's arm.

Sorry Jes, but your taste is just wrong here. Scarlett Johansson is the better choice. I mean, have you seen the opening of Lost in Translation?

Seriously, though, I am impressed with Sigourney's work with the gorillas and she seems a lot smarter than the average Hollywood star. Too many seem to support cause X for vapid reasons, but not only does she really care about her cause, she works to understand and then promote the issue. Besides, the first two Alien movies were awesome.

a) they are not post-rational

That is my new favorite description of neoconservatism. Thank you from the bottom of my heart byrningman. ^.^

Sorry, I meant not just eye candy, but you know what I mean.

a) they are not post-rational

That is my new favorite description of neoconservatism. Thank you from the bottom of my heart byrningman. ^.^

Sorry, I can't claim to have invented it, but I'm not sure where I heard it first.

It is very accurate though. It's not like they've never lived in a rational world, it's just that they found it all too scary and chose to be irrational.

"Brett, could you explain how Palin is better qualified than these Republican women?"

So, who's arguing that she's the most qualified for the job? I thought I was arguing that, given the rather minimal qualifications in terms of executive experience the other three bring to this race, she wasn't conspicuously LESS qualified. She's not MY dream candidate, that's for sure.

she seems a lot smarter than the average Hollywood star

she went to Stanford and Yale (drama, not nuclear physics, but still)

Though I suppose I should say I was expecting worse of McCain. Seems he wasn't stupid enough to select a pro-choice, anti-gun VP, and complete his estrangement from the Republican base.

You should be at least a little scared about this pick: For the first time in many years, the pro-gun community is going to go into a Presidential election fully motivated. Two profoundly anti-gun Democrats vs two clearly pro-gun Republicans: The NRA isn't going to have any trouble getting it's several million members to hit the campaign trail THIS year, that's for sure!

You should be at least a little scared about this pick

Are you kidding? Now we've got a raving nationalist crank hitched to practicing medievalist. I'm a LOT scared.

From what I remember from Weaver's biography (read a decade ago) she was brought up from an early age to be self-disciplined, independent and not relying on privilege, speaks foreign languages and has worked abroad (all of these characteristics make her of course impossible as a GOP candidate these days). To my knowledge never involved in any scandal (private or public).
Another factor that makes her an impossible candidate is (iirc*) that she is "anti-gun".
Also too intimidating for many men that would feel queasy in the presence of a woman that likely could wipe the floor with them literally and metaphorically. Don't forget that before Alien she had difficulties to get roles because the male leads complained that she was taller than them (no joke!).

*I believe she talked about that in connection with Aliens, saying that she insisted that Ripley takes up a gun only as a last measure and because she has no other choice and that would reflect her own views

Brett, you ask who's saying Palin is the most qualified person for the job. The answer, of course, is McCain, who promised us just such a nominee. As pointed out upthread and elsewhere, Palin's not in the top dozen by qualifications even if you just count Republican Women. Any other questions I can help with?

She's not MY dream candidate, that's for sure.

And so it goes. Brett gets to keep membership in the kool kids conservative club without actually having to take responsibility for the choices it vomits up.

Brett,
Do you honestly think the NRA has had trouble getting their people to the polls? Do you even know any of those people? I know lots, and they don't have any trouble getting out the vote.

Sorry, didn't mean to pile on Brett - I hadn't seen the other posts. My statement about NRA member voting stands, however.

The problem with the list of Republican women you posted is that they have each built a record, they each have an education, and none of them is a creationist. This pick loses voters who understand that we need science and technology to continue to lead. If the Dems know what they are doing the discussion will turn on her stem cell research views. What's more she does not carry the vote of Catholic women, a target to be sure. Catholics believe in education and this woman has ...not so much. A journalism degree does not qualify her to run the Pentagon. She is not one of us, she is a bad mother, out sashaying around with the boys when she has four children at home to raise. As someone who has raised a family and worked full time we know it cannot be done with four kids- without the full-time paid household help that the McCains take for granted. By the way, this pick makes us a laughingstock in London. The FT said it best,"bold, exciting but also stupid." The smart thing about O'Bama's Biden pick is that he is one of us, he has demonstrated Catholic family values his whole life. We gave Clinton the benefit of the doubt because of Georgetown... one of us. Tribal politics. Palin is a sop to the Evangelical preachers who need to get out the vote for McCain. We aren't sending Barbie to negotiate with Putin. This is a game changer in the energy market however. DRILL DRILL DRILL.

And so it goes. Brett gets to keep membership in the kool kids conservative club without actually having to take responsibility for the choices it vomits up.

That’s a little rough LJ. She hunts and fishes. There are pictures of her on a Harley and firing an M-16. She eats Moose stew. Her parents were on a Caribou hunt when they got the news. “Global warming isn’t killing polar bears – its Sarah Palin”. She hits more notes on the GOP anthem than anyone I remember in recent history. She dooms you guys. YMMV obviously, but I’ve already called it…

She dooms you guys.

Why "you guys"? If she gets elected, she dooms all of us.

Has it occured to anyone that this point is completely self-fulfilling? By this logic, anyone who can run a campaign well enough to become President has thereby proved they should have the job. Ergo, everyone who CAN be President is qualified to be. Sounds more than a little specious to me, but this is the essence of what you're saying.

My question:

Do the Republicans actually believe she is qualified or are they just trying to convince everyone?

She hits more notes on the GOP anthem than anyone I remember in recent history. She dooms you guys. YMMV obviously, but I’ve already called it…

Eighty percent of Americans think the country is on the wrong track. This is obviously a purely 'mental' phonomenon. Nothing a few strident notes in a rousing anthem won't cure.

If OCSteve proves correct, then so will Bill Maher: this country is too stupid to be governed.

--TP

Mr. F: Not at all. Obviously, it's quite possible to win a campaign despite being a bad manager. You could just get lucky. Some catastrophe could befall your opponents, or they could just be a very weak field. The heavens could open, and the Holy Ghost could descend in the form of a dove, saying: this is my candidate, in whom I am well pleased.

For this reason, I didn't just say: see, he won! I posted a series of links describing Obama's campaign and management style. Did you find them at all informative?

By this logic, anyone who can run a campaign well enough to become President has thereby proved they should have the job.

on one level, that's pretty much how democracy works. you go out and make your case, and if enough people agree with your assertion that you should be President, then, by golly, you will be President!

OCSteve, the GOP anthem doesn't play to enough people this time around. They have NEVER been able to win without indies. This pick is going to lose and many as it gains. She's playing to a shrinking base. It is counterintuitive of me but this time I'm betting on Obama's ground game - not the GOP.

Alaska, with a estimated 2007 population of 683,478 (wikipedia) has slightly more people than Baltimore, MD. In some ways her gubernatorial experience may have been more akin being the mayor of a fairly large, but not top-tier, city (Chicago, in contrast, has about four times the population), in some ways not, and in still others ways unique to Alaska . . .


(As opposed, of course, to her previous experience being the mayor of a very small town about 1/5th the size of my Philadelphia neighborhood.)

On Hilzoy's original point...
Possibly I am reading too much into it. But to me, Obama seems to be so evidently qualified a candidate that the "not enough experience" meme, and the traction it continues to get in the face of the evidence, has to be a cover for something else. Like, "Ain't gonna vote fer no Darkie" is the real sentiment, but "Oh my, I'm so worried that he isn't qualified enough" is what is considered acceptable in polite company.

She hits more notes on the GOP anthem than anyone I remember in recent history. She dooms you guys. YMMV obviously, but I’ve already called it…

You, unlike Brett, have pointed out your distance from the Republicans. Brett seems solely concerned about the Republicans keeping power. It speaks of a deeply unserious approach to the problems the US faces and is basically an F-U to any liberal here who tries to take the points that conservatives raise seriously. We've had Brett Bellmore, in-sadness-not-in-anger, complain about immigration and line up with the Republicans, in-bold defiance, complain about gun rights and line up with Republicans and now, we get 'she's not MY dream candidate'. Face it, Brett's dream candidate is whoever will guarantee power to the Republicans, which is to say that he doesn't care about the candidates, he just cares about the power and his argumentation reflects no deeply held positions, just that desire.

She hits more notes on the GOP anthem than anyone I remember in recent history. She dooms you guys. YMMV obviously, but I’ve already called it…

The problem here,OCSteve, is that while Sarah Palin may indeed hit all (or even most) of those "notes" on the "GOP anthem" than many another candidate; the American electorate is not all "GOP" (indeed, it would be a generous stretch to give them, what, 35% as a "core"?). There are a lot of us voters out here who are, to say the least, unimpressed by Governor Mooseburgers's dubious frontier "charms": and who will remain unheeding of said siren call - however good Sarah Palin looks in boots and furs. Maybe, instead of unilateral pronouncements about how "doomed" "we" are, we can get some reasoned commentary about exactly why picking Gov. Palin is so damn awesome a decision by the McCain campaign? Or is that too harshing-your-buzz over having the Queen of Wasilla on a national ticket?

She hits more notes on the GOP anthem than anyone I remember in recent history. She dooms you guys. YMMV obviously, but I’ve already called it…

The problem here,OCSteve, is that while Sarah Palin may indeed hit all (or even most) of those "notes" on the "GOP anthem" than many another candidate; the American electorate is not all "GOP" (indeed, it would be a generous stretch to give them, what, 35% as a "core"?). There are a lot of us voters out here who are, to say the least, unimpressed by Governor Mooseburgers's dubious frontier "charms": and who will remain unheeding of said siren call - however good Sarah Palin looks in boots and furs. Maybe, instead of unilateral pronouncements about how "doomed" "we" are, we can get some reasoned commentary about exactly why picking Gov. Palin is so damn awesome a decision by the McCain campaign? Or is that too harshing-your-buzz over having the Queen of Wasilla on a national ticket?

Energizing the GOP is a necessary condition for McCain to win.

But I don't think it's sufficient.

How does Palin hit the centrists and independents? Is she the spunky, straight-shootin' figure from Alaska with small-town common sense? Or is she closer to a petty, small minded authoritarian who sees nothing wrong with shaping government budgets how she likes it and not in a way her constituents need?

"Brett, you ask who's saying Palin is the most qualified person for the job. The answer, of course, is McCain, who promised us just such a nominee."

Yeah, so? He's a politician, and his lips were moving at the time. *I* wasn't making that claim.

"Brett gets to keep membership in the kool kids conservative club without actually having to take responsibility for the choices it vomits up."

Yeah, right. I'm voting for Barr this fall.

"Brett,
Do you honestly think the NRA has had trouble getting their people to the polls?"

Yes, this NRA life member who spends a good deal of time at firearms bbs's like http://www.thefiringline.com>The Firing Line or http://www.thehighroad.org>The High Road thinks that the NRA has had trouble firing up it's members to vote for Bush, who if memory fails you, ran promising to sign a renewal of the '94 'assault weapon' ban, among other gun control measures he was promising. By "firing up", of course, I speak not just of voting, but volunteering as campaign labor.

The last time the NRA went into an election fully motivated was 1994. Subsequent Republican behavior has made it rather difficult to achieve that sort or performance since then. We might see something approaching it this year, though.

Yeah, right. I'm voting for Barr this fall.

Ahh, the 'I'm too independent for either party'. Funny that I can't remember you even mentioning Barr here. You are welcome to link to your previous comments doing so.

But given this support of Barr, why is all your effort taken up in trying to shore up Repub position in this election?

Single issue, LJ. Or as close as makes no difference.

She dooms you guys.

What she does is motivate the social conservatives to line up behind McCain. That and the 10-15% head start I figure McCain gets just because Obama is the son of a black man are not something to dismiss.

That's all I'll give you.

"Dooms you guys"? Screw that.

Thanks -

I hate to disagree with a Doctor, Dr. Anarch, but at some point, I strongly believe that Brett is just arguing in bad faith, pure and simple.

Brett is now trotting out the bad politicians meme, he thinks he can cherry-pick the things he like, which somehow, mirabile dictu, have him always defending the Republican ticket (except, wonder of wonders, in hindsight) while following his principles by claiming he is voting for Barr. I can handle inconsistencies (I certainly have my share), and I think everyone has their hot button issues. But at some point, you look at the totality of the stances and the issues, and you don't see any buttons, you just get someone like Karl Rove attacking Tim Kaine's lack of experience before praising Palin's freshness. It's turtles made of BS all the way down.

Holy s*#knkjh14!!!

McCain just said it!!!!

"If they want to go down that route, in all candor, she has far, far more experience than Senator Obama does."

I don't even know what to say!

But I'm willing to place a wager with OCSteve.

"Did you know he was a POW?"

I hadn't heard.

But I've learned that that's because he's reluctant to talk about it.

"There are pictures of her on a Harley and firing an M-16. She eats Moose stew. Her parents were on a Caribou hunt when they got the news. 'Global warming isn’t killing polar bears – its Sarah Palin'. She hits more notes on the GOP anthem than anyone I remember in recent history. She dooms you guys."

OCSteve, you are aware that Republicans are the minority party? That in 2004:

[...] about 55 million are registered Republicans. About 72 million registered Democrats.

About 42 million are registered as independents, under some other minor party or with a "No Party" designation.

Why do you think that the above attributes will swing the majority over to McCain/Palin?

Sometimes I get the feeling that you judge things from the perspective of what your emailing relatives say. Or something oddball like that. I'm probably wrong, please forgive me, but I don't know what you do use, exactly, as a basis for these judgments.

You seem to think it's just an obvious given, or something that Palin Wins. How will that work? Please show your work?

Gary, were you quoting 1776?

OCSteve, Palin does strike good conservative notes. But...no more than a few million other equally-qualified conservatives would. Seems to me that the rush of rightwing enthusiasm is not so much for her, as it is relief that they can go back to feeling good about the Republican Party -- i.e., the relief is proportionate to their dislike of McCain. If I'm correct, this is not going to translate to real at-the-polls voting numbers, b/c after a short flurry, the Veep candidate seldom matters a lot to most people. Granted, Bush I, Gore and Cheney each made the office more important, but do you really think people are going to mobilize for the chance to vote for a nice lady for Vice-President? I don't see it.

It was interesting reading the above comments and justification for this selection. It appears to be a forerunner as to how McCain would govern. By the seat of his a__. Early commentary say's that he wanted to select Lieberman and was dissuaded by the repub hierarchy.
Size in an organization does matter. There is a difference in running NYC/Chicago/Seattle than running a 6000+ person town in Alaska. It is why the military selects people who have moved up the chain. The chain that would have denied McCain from becoming an admiral in the Navy. Obama has put to rest the organization argument by the type of campaign he ran all the way to the top of the ticket. He has obvious intelligence given his education and work experience. Contrast that against Bush. There is no comparison to McCain as he never served outside of govt. If experience mattered Nixon and Bush 1 would have arguably would have had sterling careers Both looked best on paper regarding past experience. If you look at what the selection process can do, look at Bush's selection of Rumsfeld/Cheney/Gonzolez/H. Miers/Cho/atta boy Brownie/Hud (his real estate Dall neighbor) who let the housing crisis flouris/FDA and some of the food inspection policies/and the beat goes on. For myself, I will go with Obama the only choice for a quality candidate. "In your heart you know he is the best". Good luck America. Use your brains for once.

but do you really think people are going to mobilize for the chance to vote for a nice lady for Vice-President? I don't see it.

Not normally, but I don’t think these are normal circumstances.

If I were a movement social-con (which I’m not), I would see this as a potentially once-in-a-lifetime chance to get one of my own, a real true believer, into the WH. That means big turnout and support ($ and organizational effort) from that direction.

Why?

Because normally a committed social-con on the top of the ticket would have a hard time winning a general election without waffling and compromising or concealing their beliefs. Look how it worked out with GWB. He is the closest any President has come to being a social-con and his administration did little to advance their agenda.

Gov. Palin is a different story – as the VP candidate, she will not be subject to the degree of scrutiny (with regard to policy) as the Presidential nominee. Most voters don’t base their decision on the bottom half of the ticket. This allows the VP slot to act as a Trojan Horse for getting somebody into the WH via a Presidential succession who would not be able to do so directly by claiming the party’s nomination (note that Huckabee and Brownback did not win this year’s contest) and then prevailing in a general election.

It helps a great deal that the initial media scrutiny of Gov. Palin is focused almost entirely on her children, and after the media have finished acting like paparazzi and dragging her family through the dirt, the backlash which this generates will give the McCain camp plenty of leverage to shield her from the media which will help prevent her policy views from being extensively aired and challenged. Given that McCain’s age and health give her a better chance than average of ascending to the Presidency from the VP position, this is the best chance the social-cons have had in ages. I don’t blame them for being fired up and ready to go.

gwangung:

Surely you don't mean Former Rep.Barr of Georgia..Robert Barr of BOTH pro and con Washington, D.C. medical Marijuana Initiative note, the guy who called the Libertarian Party a bunch of Commies, then got nominated by them, or Barr who fought the A.C.L.U tooth and nail 'til they hired him as a consultant? That Barr, they guy whose stand on an issue is a s firm as a bowl of jello, as steadfast as a weathervane? That Barr?

Just checking...

I love all the folks who claim to support this monomaniac...

Remember Kids, a vote for Bobby Barr is a vote for Barack Obama

The "who's got the most administrative experience" meme is because this is the first presidential election since, I think, 1920 (not absolutely sure) in which both major candidates have experience only as legislators. The former governor or administrator didn't always WIN (Dewey/Truman, 1948; Bush 1/Dukakis 1988) but there has always been at least one in the contest.

Mostly its a crock. But like everything else in our 24/7/365 cable news and blogging universe, it demands its five minutes of fame.

Harveykek, it would seem to make more sense for "executive experience" to be a larger issue when only one of the candidates has it. When neither has it, in a sane world it should be irrelevant to the campaign. Unfortunately we live in a world in which the McCain campaign can make arguments that obviously imply that McCain's own experience is lacking, confident that the media will mostly ignore the hypocrisy and thus the voters that count will buy the garbage.

Obama's twisted logic that merely running for office provides him with the qualifications, experience and credentials to perform in that office, is as laughable as his twisted logic that a whirlwind 9 day, six country, overseas photo op qualifies him as an expert on foreign policy. Obama is an empty suit who is obviously trying to create the illusion that he is something that he is not. If its a choice between an experienced mayor and Governor, with an approval rating of 80% for V.P. versus. a community organizer, and junior senator, who spent most of his time in office running for President ... I choose Palin. No Wright, no Farrakahn, no Ayers, no Rezko, no mean Michelle, NOBAMA

If executive experience, means firing, spying and manipulating wiki and resume references then she is most qualified

Additionally, I got more info 10 minutes from Senator Obama and Senator Biden on where the country is at, has been, and the direction it is heading, and potential solutions on how to approach the problems and fix them in a bipartisan way if you are willing to compromise. What I got from Senator McCain and Governor Palin was 3 days of bashing the hell out of there opponents. And I'm a POW I'm a POW! I am a vet as well but I don't go around telling everyone every chance I get over and over and over and over! Not one issue was talked about other than there standard sound bite that all republicans seem to have at the same time? Its like a uniform ventriloquist's act which I must admit has always impressed me. Do you guys have a secret implant that is controlled by the "One"? Get to the issues so we can make an informed opinion on what your party actually stands for. Until you do that how can we respect what you have to say or know if we should vote for you? P.S. Take a clue from Ron Paul, now that guy gets to the point and has solutions. I might not agree with all of them but I do respect him because it's not all about him, its about, We The People, he's a true conservative!

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad