She is not a person who even did a 40-hour a week gig, let alone what the presidency requires. She is thoroughly unsuited for POTUS, whatever your ideology may be, and I'm stunned that there are intelligent people who cannot see that.
She is not a person who even did a 40-hour a week gig, let alone what the presidency requires. She is thoroughly unsuited for POTUS, whatever your ideology may be, and I'm stunned that there are intelligent people who cannot see that.
The Horror wrote:
She is not a person who even did a 40-hour a week gig, let alone what the presidency requires. She is thoroughly unsuited for POTUS, whatever your ideology may be, and I'm stunned that there are intelligent people who cannot see that.
I could not agree more with this post. She is in no way qualified to perform the job of President of the US. Sure many are not pleased with the problems that we are facing as a nation. But does anybody really think that Palin is the answer?!?! Sure she is a departure from the people that have been there in the past, but just because she is different doesn't make her better.
Here is my litmus test.
If I would not hire her to run a company of 250 people; then she is not smart, or experienced enough, or of high enough character to run the country, let alone Alaska.
She proved incapable of running Alaska; she quit.
She quit, not for all the Blame Shifting reasons she gave in her pandering book, but because she was more interested in getting rich and aggrandized off her national attention.
(If she was ugly, little of her life achievements would have happened.)
While I have founded, and hired Republicans before - for their experience, skills and intelligence, I am not one.
Palin? I would not hire her to run my company...or any company. She is a narcissist and a blame shifter.
Rudy Guiliani has a sign on his desk that says "I'm Responsible."
THAT is my kind of Republican, or leader, political or business-wise.
While most of us men would "do" Sarah Palin, that doesn't mean she is capable of leading anything. Her track record in Alaska - when all is said and revealed - will turn out to show her lack of character - and her greed and narcissism.
The MUCH bigger question is WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN OUR COUNTRY, OR WHAT HAS NOT HAPPENED, THAT HAS ALLOWED OUR COUNTRY TO BECOME SO STUPID THAT SOME SECTOR OF THE COUNTRY WILL SEE THIS WOMAN AS INTELLIGENT AND WORTH GIVING ATTENTION TO.
She is laughable ignorant, she is more of a "character" than a person of "character."
oh nooooooo wrote:
The Horror wrote:She is not a person who even did a 40-hour a week gig, let alone what the presidency requires. She is thoroughly unsuited for POTUS, whatever your ideology may be, and I'm stunned that there are intelligent people who cannot see that.
I could not agree more with this post. She is in no way qualified to perform the job of President of the US. Sure many are not pleased with the problems that we are facing as a nation. But does anybody really think that Palin is the answer?!?! Sure she is a departure from the people that have been there in the past, but just because she is different doesn't make her better.
I did a lot of writing on this thread, mostly off of the topic of Palin, but I started by trying to answer the original question about why she gets so much attention. And I began my answer by admitting that she's not qualified to be president. But to recap the later direction the thread took, if somebody who has never worked a serious 40-hour-a-week job or who you wouldn't hire to run a 200-person small business is fundamentally unsuited for the Oval Office, when are all the folks who rightly point out Palin's lack of qualifications going to apply a similar standard to Obama?
As I pointed out earlier, part of the knee-jerk reaction to "defend" Palin is due to the absolutely amazing double standard which has been and continues to be applied to her. She may personally be indefensible, but that doesn't justify the level of intellectual dishonesty obvious in this situation
gamecock wrote:
But to recap the later direction the thread took, if somebody who has never worked a serious 40-hour-a-week job or who you wouldn't hire to run a 200-person small business is fundamentally unsuited for the Oval Office, when are all the folks who rightly point out Palin's lack of qualifications going to apply a similar standard to Obama?
What is it about Obama's work history that you question? Law professor? State senator? Senator? Those are not "real jobs"?
Leaving aside unfounded innuendo, what is there?
She is not a person who even did a 40-hour a week gig, let alone what the presidency requires. She is thoroughly unsuited for POTUS, whatever your ideology may be, and I'm stunned that there are intelligent people who cannot see that.What abooot Ronny. He was a gay swim boy from the land of Lincoln who let made his career by having gay sex with Hollywood movie execs. He never showed any smarts, and didn't have any. Yet Reagan was elected POTUS twice, and is a hero to the Nazi right in America. There's no reason I can't see why Palin can't take the Victoria Principal Beauty Informercial methodology and take that to the White House.
Not that I particularly agree with this Wendell character very often, but I have to support him in questioning what about Obama you wouldn't want running your company?
Now, let's take a step back and say these two candidates walk into your office applying for a job, not having gone through the presidential elections, blah blah blah. Obama, a graduate of Columbia undergrad, Harvard Law School, had been on the Harvard Law Review, speaks extremely well, and is able to answer any question you put forth to him. Also, if he doesn't know an answer he sounds genuinely interested in researching it.
Sarah Palin walks in and has been to five different schools for he Journalism degree, she comes off as kind of woodsy and she is very firm in her beliefs, whether you agree or not. She doesn't seem interested in researching or learning anything else.
This is honestly how they came across to me. I like to think of myself as an open mind, ready to be convinced otherwise. I love taking the other side, so I either come out with a stronger belief of my own ideas or convinced of what that other side is. That, to me, is intelligence. Being confident in your knowledge, but being able to accept hat you may be wrong and there are other ideas out there. I personally love mathematics and have taken one strong belief from it: In order to support your claim you must prove all others false.
If you are willing and able to listen to opposite views you are a step ahead of a person unable to do so, stuck in their own status quo. I am certainly not saying Obama is king of open-mindedness, but he certainly would be much more qualified than Sarah Palin to run my company if they just walked into my office.
I just watched Major Garrett's vaguely hostile interview with Obama on FOX. Obama answered every one of his questions crisply and soberly and thoroughly.
Could Palin have done as much, even in a softball interview...no.
Agree. The major difference in Obama and Palin from a qualification standpoint is not so much in their respective resumes (although, like most people here, I believe that Obama's is considerably stronger) but in their intellectual capacities. Like GWB, Palin seems to be intellectually uncurious to an alarming degree. And when she tries to participate in discussions about foriegn policy, international relations, judicial philosophy, etc., she sounds as if she has only the vaguest idea of what she is talking about. This is a defect that should disqualify anyone from serious consideration as a presidential candidate, and it is one that President Obama obvilously does not share. Nor is it a glaring weakness with any other politician that I can think of who would be considered a serious presidential candidate. Saying that Obama's resume is a little thin compared to some (or even most)past presidents of the United States is one thing, but attempting to put him on the level with Palin is quite another and is simply not a credible argument.
Pro's:
She was a governor of a state, which is the best qualification there is.
She was an extremely successful and popular governor. I would put her 2 yr record against any other state in the US.
She is a fiscal hawk and very articulate when it comes to our sad energy policies.
She has a strong voice for social conservative issues, but has never tried to legislate them.
Cons:
She has no credibility on foreign policy, which is a deal breaker.
And she seems a bit flaky.
Look, he's got a great resume. If he walked into an interview with me with his Harvard Law sheepskin, I'd hire him for a good job on the fast track in a heartbeat*. And Palin I probably wouldn't. But make him CEO? Nope. As for his "experience," his job as "lawyer" doesn't include much in the way of full-time legal practice. State Senator is a part-time job. He wasn't a "Law Professor" like Lawrence Tribe is, he was an instructor. Good gig, but a function of the pedigree again. No tenure, no publish or perish. And the job of US Senator is a great one, but he beat Alan Keyes after a genuine candidate dropped out, then spent the better part of an otherwise unspectacular single term running for office. I still am not 100% sure what a community organizer does. But it doesn't look to me like he's ever managed even the night shift at a 7-11. He may very well be 10 times smarter than Palin. But I've said over and over that she's not qualified to be president. The point is not to equate the two. If there's a red line that indicates "prepared to be leader of the free world," she's quite possibly further below it than him. But he's below it. (And let's not just assume offhand that she is uniquely unqualified--she was, after all, the governor of a US state.) He is the least-prepared US president in a century, yet we're told over and over that it's OK because he's so brilliant. But it's entirely possible that he is actually a guy who, while smart, has benefitted from a great deal of luck and good political sense. No evidence I have seen so far proves the contrary.
*Full disclosure: in that same hypothetical interview, I also would have hired Yale/Harvard grad George W. Bush, especially if I wasn't allowed to see his grades. And if I would have been foolish for doing so, why is it not even remotely possible that Obama might be a similarly bad choice?
I don't really find Palin likeable let alone intelligent. Political inclination must be one rosy colored glasses.
NW conservative wrote:
Pro's:
She was a governor of a state, which is the best qualification there is.
but yet the GOP said he was unqualified due to a population greater than Alaska
She was an extremely successful and popular governor. I would put her 2 yr record against any other state in the US.
Clinton served longer, and was more popular.
She is a fiscal hawk and very articulate when it comes to our sad energy policies.
She some of the highest tax rates on corporations in history and demonstrated the intelligence of a sock puppet.
She has a strong voice for social conservative issues, but has never tried to legislate them.
Yup, because she would go down faster than a $2 hooker on skid row.
Cons:
She has no credibility on foreign policy, which is a deal breaker.
no doubt
And she seems a bit flaky.
no s**t
Alaska has a population about 700,000 and vast natural resources. Not such a tough gig. Too tough for her to finish, apparently.
And it's pretty obvious that she has a very very short fuse.
less than 30% of the adults in America have college degrees
Wendell Gee wrote:
lurking_fool wrote:Graduating college (any of them) doesn't make you intelligent. I'm an engineer and proud of my degree, but I've worked with other engineers (also with degrees) who couldn't design their way out of a paper bag.
Of course it doesn't make you intelligent, but surely as an engineer you recognize that there's a strong relationship between graduating college and intelligence.
Can you imagine Palin facing down confirmed/confessed mass murdering pigs like Hu Jintao, Benjamin Netanyahu, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong Il, Ehud Olmert, Robert Mugabe, Hamid Karzai, George W. Bush, Vladimir Putin, Robert Gates, Hassan Nasrallah, Stanley McCrystal, Dmitry Mendeleev, etc.
Don't forget Colin Powell, William Westmoreland, Harry S. Truman. Those butchers murdered millions.
NW conservative wrote:
Pro's:
She was a governor of a state, which is the best qualification there is.
She was an extremely successful and popular governor. I would put her 2 yr record against any other state in the US.
She is a fiscal hawk and very articulate when it comes to our sad energy policies.
She has a strong voice for social conservative issues, but has never tried to legislate them.
1. Being governor is, of course, one of the most common qualifications for president, but merely being one doesn't mean you're qualified, see #2.
2. Seriously? What about that record would you hold up? I'm still waiting for NObama to answer that but he ran away (or was banned?). How on earth could you hold up a person who quit the job as a success?
3. Fiscal hawk? Based on what? Trucking her kids around the country on the state dime? Living in Wasilla and collecting per diem (and failing to pay taxes on it)? She certainly doesn't walk the walk.
Even the Cato Institute doesn't favor her tax policy:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/08/29/palin-uninspiring-tax-policy-record/"Bridge to Nowhere" hypocrisy? "I favored it! No I didn't!"
Alaska takes more money from the feds per capita than any other state. That's not fiscally hawkish.
4. Whatever. She feels strongly but does nothing about it. That's good?
Sarah Palin's good looks?
With all the mystery surrounding her somewhat inexplicable popularity among the most naive and victimized white people in our country, I find this the most puzzling.
Sarah Palin is good looking? Huh?
That's what I'm saying. Is she really attractive? I mean, compared to Hillary Clinton, or any other politician for that matter, maybe I can see it, but really? Attractive?
Sarah Palin is an unmitigated disaster who is capitalizing on her 15 minutes of fame. She will fade (one can only hope).
"Drop the slavery and oppression garbage. Blacks were not the only group of people to ever be oppressed and discriminated".
I am pretty sure they were, however, the only ones that were enslaved with no rights at all for centuries here in our very own nation. And that they received zero in reparations for this incredible wrong done to them