The Bushes like Romney.
One more reason not to like Romney, as far as I’m concerned. I wonder how important they think a Bush endorsement will be in a Republican primary? A lot less than I think it will, I bet.
54 thoughts on “Why Barbara Bush Bashed Sarah”
Comments are closed.
The presidential election in 2012 will be the Republican’s to lose. Obama will be beaten if a halfway decent candidate is put forward. Neither Romney nor Palin are that candidate. That might squeak out a win, but likely will not. Palin is not qualified. And Romney’s past shows him to not be a principled conservative, nor is he a great articulator of conservative values. We need to kill these candidates as live possibilities well before the primary.
Do not underestimate Barack Obama. He is still a master of rhetoric, and knows how to turn on the charm. He could regroup and bounce back. Especially if the economy starts showing signs of life again.
In W’s book, when he first told his Mom he would run for Governor; her reponse was “you’ll never win”.
“Palin is not qualified.”
how about joey biden? is that idiot “qualified”?
After the last two (and the coming two) years, don’t underestimate the appeal of basic demonstrated competence. Romney beats Obama by 4-5 points or so in recent polling. If he’s the nominee, only an idiot would stay home because Romney’s insufficiently conservative, when the alternative is Obama. Fight for your preference in the primaries, yes – but support the candidate who’s chosen.
But then I said the same thing about McCain, and look what happened… How much better off would we be if we’d had McCain wielding the veto these last two years? No matter how much of a loose cannon he is at times…
I’d not mind seeing a Romney-Gingrich ticket. Or Romney-Palin, for that matter. A competent manager to get the listing ship of state levelled off, while the VP takes the lead on selling future fundamental course changes. NK’s revealing unsuspected uranium enrichment, while we negotiate with fake-but-accurate Taliban “leaders”? And that’s just this week. Another two years of this and simple competence might be a fairly urgent national priority.
@ David Gadbois:
I’m really sick of hearing ” Palin is not qualified “ from supposed right-wingers. What made Obama “qualified”? She may not be the best candidate but she’s certainly qualified.
Eric
Palin was the only one of the 4 candidates in 2008 who could be called qualified. None of the others had ever run so much as a pop-stand. None of the others could remotely be called wise.
Palin has been successful as wife, parent, small business owner, councilwoman, mayor, energy regulator, Alaska GOP reformer, governor, author, speaker, political leader, TV personality. Other than that she’s eclipsed by the awesome “gravitas” of all those white guys with tasteful ties and a tasteful hint of grey at their temples.
Eric, conservatives rightly criticized Obama as inexperienced and unqualified during the 2008 election, inasmuch as his experience consisted of community organizing and phoning in only 2/3rds of a U.S. Senate term. Palin, rightly or wrongly, didn’t bother to finish a single term as governor. So what does she have on her resume to make up for it? She does not display any sign of having keen insight on policy, no academic or think tank credentials, she is not a particularly articulate champion of conservative principles. She is a gaffe-prone populist speaker. Simply being conservative is not good enough to qualify one to be President of the United States.
“…didn’t bother to finish a single term as governor.” That is a dishonest statement.
Palin was forced out by…
A. An insane law that allowed unlimited frivolous ethics complaints that she had to defend out of her own pocket. (In any other state the state will defend the governor.)
B. Her (very great) successes as governor were all based on cooperation with Democrats, often in opposition to corrupt Republicans. After 2008 Dems refused to work with her. So she passed the ball to her very able lieutenant governor.
Palin has potential, she would make a great VP. If she wants to run for President, she should wait. She would also make a great replacement for Michael Steele.
Romney has two major flaws. First, is his Romneycare. Second, is that he is a Mormon. The left has a demented bigotry toward Mormons. Did you notice all of the stories in the media about polygamy in the news during the primaries?
John W., I’d say Palin was “forced” out of office if she was recalled, impeached, or if there was a military coup.
Regardless of the wisdom of her decision to leave office, she didn’t get the experience she needed. It is not just about building up a skill set (which is obviously important), it is also about building up a track record that engenders trust by the voting public.
David G., on the day Palin showed up to take office as mayor of Wasilla, she surpassed the executive experience Obama had before he became president. Then she served as mayor, led an ethics panel, and served two years as governor — which means Palin has more executive experience than Obama has NOW.
At any rate, Jeb Bush has no chance of beating Obama; the tea party voters will not support him.
“She does not display any sign of having keen insight on policy, no academic or think tank credentials, she is not a particularly articulate champion of conservative principles.”
Here elitist! Here elitist, come here boy.
Yes, Prof. Wilson was a GREAT choice. Name a president with keen insight on policies before being elected. Good luck finding a candidate with what you think they need and the ability to lead and act. She is a leader, with presence and someone who will act and lead; two very important qualities in a president.
Her defeat of the GOP establishment, her work on a Alaska resources management and pipeline deal are more and better accomplishments than anyone she ran with or against. The current crop doesn’t meet your guidelines either.
When you say rightly or wrongly you understand she left the governorship due to mounting legal bills the state said others couldn’t pay brought about by partisan ethics complaints the filers knew she had to defend herself against. She made 81,000/yr and was paying 500,000 in legal bills. What would you do? What would anyone do?
Her problem is the visceral hatred of those on the left and the media (redundant, I know) who have blown gaffes out of proportion and beat her negatives to death every chance they get. They attack her children worse than other Republicans.
McGehee, you said that Palin has more executive experience than Obama has NOWi>
Indeed. So Palin is less unqualified than Obama was. But they are still both unqualified. In the past Americans have expected better. I can only think of one, Eisenhower, who got a pass because of his military service.
“How much better off would we be if we’d had McCain wielding the veto these last two years? No matter how much of a loose cannon he is at times…”
With McCain in the white house it would have been a lot harder for the tea party folks to get the traction they needed to make the progress they did. If socialism had kept creeping along to many would have kept sleeping through their lose of freedom. Freedom lovers needed Obama to help them get their message out.
I like Palin a great deal but don’t think she’ll be ready for the big chain in 2012. Her executive experience is far greater than Obama’s or Biden’s (or for that matter, McCain’s) but I personally believe she needs more time. If the choice were between her and Obama in 2012, I’d vote for her in a heartbeat.
“She does not display any sign of having keen insight on policy, no academic or think tank credentials, she is not a particularly articulate champion of conservative principles.”
She has a lot of experience in energy policy. Her foreign policy experience is limited to her dealings with Canada in negotiating a major energy project. That said, we’ve been electing “polished politicians” for a long time now and look where that has gotten us.
Palin’s biggest appeal is that she comes across as someone ordinary people can relate to. The contempt she gets from the professional political class in general and the Left in particular is an indication of what they think of the rest of us. The more they attack her, the more popular she becomes with a hard core of voters. Could she draw enough votes to win the presidency in 2012? Personally, I doubt it. As good a person as she is, the damage done by the Left and the Press (redundant, I know) has left a mark on the independent voters.
Bill, you miss the point. Academics is not the only way, or even the best way, to build up one’s resume as a candidate. But you need something on there to demonstrate that you have the intellectual firepower necessary for fulfilling the office.
I wasn’t alive to remember Reagan’s campaign, but the speeches I have seen (stretching back even further than his ’79 run) make me think that he was both keen on top of being an articulate defender of conservative principles.
You say She is a leader, with presence and someone who will act and lead; two very important qualities in a president.
Yes, same thing with Obama. He was a “leader” with “presence” too.
As for her leaving the governorship, even if she had left for the best of reasons, say, because she needed to get cancer treatment, the net effect is the same. She wouldn’t have the necessary experience.
“Regardless of the wisdom of her decision to leave office, she didn’t get the experience she needed. ”
really?
link
“It is not just about building up a skill set (which is obviously important), it is also about building up a track record that engenders trust by the voting public.”
Of course I’d like a longer track record too. But the essence of executive leadership is choosing a few ambitious-but-possible goals, and then focusing on them and pushing them through. That’s rare! And that’s precisely what Palin did as governor. Two of her major goals, restructuring of Alaska’s oil valuation formula and starting the natural gas pipeline, she nailed in her first year. (The pipeline had been deadlocked for decades!)
Her work as a mayor was similar, on a much smaller scale.
The real job of the President is not to be brilliant, or clever, or creative. It’s it is firstly to be wise, and secondly to lead.
Presidents who are rated highly intelligent or intellectual often are the ones who turn out bad. Such as Nixon, Carter, Wilson, and (supposedly) Obama. The Presidents who history rates highly were often scorned as ignorant bumpkins. Truman, Lincoln, Reagan.
Again, I’d love a longer track record, but I’d say that what we have a very strong evidence that she has the two qualities we need. And I’m not seeing the same combination in any of the other front-runner types.
As an example of evidence of wisdom (no, I’m not saying it’s proof) I just read that she is a fan of economist Luigi Zingales!
newrouter, I didn’t say Palin didn’t have a good start. But she still had 2 years to go. I’d understand if you guys thought she should run for the House, or even Senate. But POTUS? Come on, guys, shouldn’t we be looking for someone with a full term of experience in something higher than mayoral office?
But POTUS? Come on, guys, shouldn’t we be looking for someone with a full term of experience in something higher than mayoral office?
We should, if Obama is any indication. However, Lincoln had no prior executive experience, either.
So, if Palin had been Governor of Vermont or New Hampshire, which have only two-year Gubernatorial terms, would that suffice, since she would have served “a full term” over the course of those two years?
Why should a candidate have to meet some arbitrary set of qualifications of academia, executive service, etc. beyond the Constitutional qualifications of a natural-born citizen, 35 years or older, who has been a permanent resident for 14 years or more? Because David said so? That’s a pretty specious reason…
the mayor’s office is the ideal experience to learn the basics of executive gov’t. the projects Palin got going in her shorten term of gov. showed she had mastered the basics. being a senator or congressman ain’t scalable to being president.
I wasn’t alive to remember Reagan’s campaign, but the speeches I have seen (stretching back even further than his ’79 run) make me think that he was both keen on top of being an articulate defender of conservative principles.
I was, and you’re nuts. Reagan was widely derided at the time as a bumpkin, B-class actor, simpleton, moron, un-nuanced, ignorant. No way his “intellectual firepower,” as you put it, could be compared to the erudite peanut farmer former governor of Georgia, with the distinguished junior naval officer career, who spoke so learnedly of the limits to growth, and the need for nuance and subtlety in foreign affairs.
That was in fact just as much of a smear as it was when it was said about GWB, and when it’s said now about Palin. You can’t be elected governor in a hotly contested race without excellent organizational abilities and a heaping dose of smarts.
But who cares? Your criterion is dumb. If absolutely brilliant people made the best leaders, we wouldn’t live in a democracy; we’d select our philosopher-king through compettive exams, or at least require him to have a PhD in high-energy physics or something. We don’t. Most of us understand very well that brilliance is totally overrated in public leadership. A public leader isn’t expected to solve complex integrals in his head, or invent complex new financial instruments, or propose laws that only very leared law professors comprehend. And even if any of these things needs to be done, he has on tap any number of experts to assist him in these things.
No, beyond a basic criterion of above-average IQ, a President needs above all character, discipline, to be a superb and ruthless judge of people, to be able to judge the mood of the country very well — unlike the tin ear Obama has — and to be able to set priorities quickly, make difficult decisions quickly, and stick to his or her guns when necessary (and know when it’s necessary).
Does Palin have those things? Maybe. To some extent, the degree to which she has successfully moved the topic of daily debate, and remained relevant long after her official moment in the Sun (the 2008 campaign) is over, despite her complete lack of formal responsibility, is an impressive testament to her political savvy and ability to judge the mood of the country. Is she a good judge of people? Again, maybe so. Despite what must be enormous temptation dangled by her enemies — including the media — almost nobody in her inner circle appears to have been willing to betray her and dish out the dirt any normal person has in his closet. She seems to inspire considerable loyalty, which, again, bodes well for her Presidential aspirations.
The only real remaining question is: does she make tough decisions quickly and well, and does she have the fiber to persist in the face of hostility and ignorance? There, yes, a longer track record as governor, or at least an exhibition of resolve and principle such as Governor Christie seems to be displaying, would be highly desirable.
Post-script: I should point out that the very first criterion — character, e.g. sound principles and excellent moral instincts — is the one thing Palin seems to already have in spades.
I have to wonder sometimes whether what the Modern Left really means by its fetishization of “intelligence” is “someone who can bullshit the rubes sufficiently convincingly,” because, as Ann Coulter likes to point out, a leftist can only win an election in the United States by pretending to be center-right (cf. Obama, Barack, circa November 2008). You need to be a very smooth liar to pull that off.
My choices in order would be
Gov Gary Johnson
Gov Sara Palin
Gov Chris Christie
.
.
.
Bringing up the rear….
Gov Romney would be next to last.
Gov Huckabee would be dead last on my list.
(If I had to choose Huckabee vs Obama I’d vote libertarian, or move)
John B, I wouldn’t say that executive experience per se is required. Legislative experience is fine (which wouldn’t leave ol’ Abe out), just not quite as preferable. The skill set is slightly different, but one must at least build up a track record that can be examined, where one demonstrates one’s principles and character in action. This is not arbitrary, this is how almost everyone who is not an entry-level employee is hired.
Am I to take it, from your argument, that you consider someone “qualified” for POTUS as long as they are conservative and meet the minimal constitutional requirements?
Carl said I was, and you’re nuts. Reagan was widely derided at the time as a bumpkin, B-class actor, simpleton, moron, un-nuanced, ignorant.
Role the tape (from 1964): http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/post/?q=YjU5N2FjMTJiNjc4NTM3YWZmZjhhNjFiMmI1MDk4ZTY=
Seems very keen and articulate to me. Those qualities don’t imply elite, professorial, or think-tankish. It doesn’t imply high-falutin’ vs. plain-spoken.
Are you really suggesting that Palin is as great a communicator as Reagan? Really?
Again, you are making a strawman of my position. I never said the candidate had to be “absolutely brilliant.” My position is that any candidate is going to need a mix of qualifications on their resume. Reagan didn’t have academics. GWB wasn’t articulate. OK, they lacked in some areas but made up in others (gubernatorial experience). Just like any candidate for any other job. Palin doesn’t have experience. OK, not the end of the world, but what does she have to make up for it? It was in this context that I put forward various possibilities (academics, articulate, etc.).
Does Palin have those things? Maybe.
Indeed maybe. She needs to build up a track record and turn that maybe into a confident “yes.”
I just don’t know why we would put Palin up as a candidate when there are qualified men available. I’ll throw out John Bolton and little-known (outside of CA) Tom McClintock. Christie, Jindal, Rubio would probably be infinitely better than Huckster, Palin, or Romney. But they also have terms to finish.
I was, and you’re nuts. Reagan was widely derided at the time as a bumpkin, B-class actor, simpleton, moron, un-nuanced, ignorant. No way his “intellectual firepower,” as you put it, could be compared to the erudite peanut farmer former governor of Georgia, with the distinguished junior naval officer career, who spoke so learnedly of the limits to growth, and the need for nuance and subtlety in foreign affairs.
You forgot to include the widespread claims that Reagan would get us into WWIII and destroy the world.
David, you said that you weren’t alive when Reagan ran for office. Many of us were and we remember how he was ridiculed and derided by the Left. Take what they’ve done to Palin and that’s at least as bad as what they did to Reagan. It doesn’t matter what you think of his old speeches (and they were very good), the “narrative” being pushed about him was very bad. I know – I was there.
I had just come to CA to go to college when Regan was running for office in 1980. I got to personally hear him speak during the 1984 campaign.
Now when you find Reagan on line, its all his best work.
When he was running for office the media searched for and played all his bloopers, they called him a B actor and bumpkin. The point is that the media can slant the story any way they want. they have effectively done this with Palin and GWB before him.
when he was running you could not turn on a TV set and not see re-runs of “bed time for bonzo”, it was on several times a week.
I personally watched GWB stand and answer unscripted questions from a crowd of 2K people for over an hour when I lived in NH. This was in primary season before his first election. He answered a huge array of questions with knowledge and thought. When the media played excerpts from that event they only played the parts where they could magnify the Texas good old boy image. It was outright fraud by omission.
The same week I went to a McCain rally and it was just the opposite,
McCain was feeble and slow 10 years ago. The only coherent answer he gave to any question was a direct replay of his well rehearsed
stump speech on money in politics. When main stream media covered this event, that was the only clip they played.
If GWB had said there were 57 states it would have been on every newscast 24-7 for weeks. Obama says it and unless you find it online it was not covered. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws)
I have personally not watched a main stream abc, cbs, nbc newscast since I saw what they did to events that I personally attended in 2000.
You really need to make the effort to go to live political events to get a flavor for the candidates. (I’ve personally met Gary Johnson with a small group of 20 or so people about 6 months ago, that meeting is why he is first on my list.)
even in
She does not display any sign of having keen insight on policy
Go back to the Charlie Gibson interview. Gibson didn’t have a clue about the ‘Bush Doctrine’ that he thought made him look serious when actually it proved he was a fool. But Sarah, answered correctly, twice (two correct answers to different aspects of the badly formed question.) I had to look it up but she nailed the international law that applied.
Don’t confuse the package with the content. She is an intellectual giant compared to Obama. She has more executive experience (and more important, positive results) than Obama will have by the end of his term.
She just happens to be right on most policy issues. Obama is working hard (or is it hardly working?) to destroy this country while claiming his destruction is some kind of success. It is striking how they attack her in a manner similar to Reagan. She’s not the great communicator that Reagan was. I’d like somebody better. I don’t see anyone better (although I’d still like the guy with no fire in his belly.) She has the fire and the potential to make a good start at cleaning up a government that has been moving in the wrong direction for over a generation.
Larry said It doesn’t matter what you think of his old speeches (and they were very good), the “narrative” being pushed about him was very bad. I know – I was there.
But what makes someone “qualified” for POTUS to sensible people, the left’s “narrative” or reality? Now perhaps a false-yet-accepted “narrative” can reduce one’s electibility, but that is not the same thing.
I just don’t know why we would put Palin up as a candidate when there are qualified men available.
Because she has a knack for feeling the pulse of the country, because her instincts about what made America great (and can continue to make it still greater) are spot on, and because she is inspirational, a return to the Horatio Alger story that anyone can grow up to be President, if he (or she) is a straight-shooter with sound judgment, discipline, and an appetite for hard work. That we really are a meritocracy who values can-do know-how over ever so much theoretical lecturing about the limits to growth.
The Kerrys and Obamas are dispiriting, to say the least, as they imply unless you are of the Proper Breeding, are connected to big movement money in the right ways, are a cultured media star, go to Hahvahd Lah, and hobnob with prolix nuancy dweebs with PhDs in Policy from the Kennedy school with exceptionally tight sphincters who only laugh through their noses, you’re locked out. You might as well be born in a log cabin and not understand the use of deodorant or logarithms.
I like the idea that a mother of rambunctious four, wife of a snowmobile champion, good grief, ex small-town mayor and iconoclastic true outsider governor who talks too much in a mildly grating accent and probably laughs at 8th grade poop jokes can reach for the brass ring. I admit I do not know yet if she has the grit and stamina for the long slog. Last time she was the supporting actress — this time she’d be the star, calling all the shots. We’ll find out whether she’s got bottom or whether she’s a Howard Dean flash in the pan. By all means let her give it a shot; I think her moment is now, and if she waits and waits she’ll end up like Mario Cuomo, the greatest noncandidate the Democrats every considered nominating year after year.
Also, Paul Breed is exactly right. The media will artfully recast everyone to suit their own narrative. Believe none of it. Furthermore, I don’t actually think that much of Reagan’s speeches. I’ve heard better. He was a great President because he (like FDR) had a superb temperament — he had no real trouble working with a Democratic Congress — and he had strong and correct general principles, he could talk plainly to people without talking down to them (because he respected everybody, even his enemies), and he had the confidence and chutzpah to see things through. He was not the absolute best judge of men, alas.
i’m sure if they played the 1964 speech every year in the public schools it would have little effect on the public schools “drones”. the elites hate freedom.
Indeed. So Palin is less unqualified than Obama was. But they are still both unqualified. In the past Americans have expected better. I can only think of one, Eisenhower, who got a pass because of his military service.
Washington? Jackson? Grant? History did not begin in 1945.
As for your other complaint — “She does not display any sign of having keen insight on policy, no academic or think tank credentials, she is not a particularly articulate champion of conservative principles” — that’s exactly the sort of snobbish remark the elite hurled at Ronald Reagan. The only difference is the pronoun.
What leads you to believe that academic credentials make someone a better leader? William F. Buckley once famously said that he would rather entrust the government to the first 400 people listed in the Boston phonebook than to the faculty of Harvard. If academic credentials determine fitness for office, don’t Obama’s credentials (law-school professor, Nobel Prize winner) make him the most qualified President ever?
“Simply being conservative is not good enough to qualify one to be President of the United States.”
After what we’ve had for the last 22 months, if she can read, walk and chew gum, and answer questions sans teleprompter, your “simply” is way underrated!!
When you come right down to it, the ONLY qualification for being POTUS, is a 1st term as POTUS. Being Governor comes in a distant but important second. Being an effective Governor adds to that by leaps and bounds.
“Community Organizer” isn’t even on the effin’ radar!
And what of the ample evidence that Palin has a mean streak and holds a grudge? Most recently, look at the way she slammed Katie Couric on Sean Hannity’s show. If she can’t handle the American press, how is she going to deal with Putin and Ahmadinejad?
Yes, Palin does inspire intense loyalty in some, but she also inspires intense antipathy in others. She is a deeply polarizing figure and I don’t think that’s what this country needs.
Besides, she’s making money hand over fist now, getting all the attention she wants (the “lamestream” media she so despises reports on her every Tweet), and has none of the accountability of public office. I wonder whether she really wants to give that up.
Edward, you said that’s exactly the sort of snobbish remark the elite hurled at Ronald Reagan. The only difference is the pronoun.
Except that they were wrong, Reagan was indeed an articulate champion of conservative principles. Palin is not.
And you aren’t paying attention to my argument. I never said that academic credentials make someone a better leader or were required for a candidate. Academics is just one of several things one could have on their “resume”, as it were. Look, its like hiring anyone else for any other job. If you go in for a job and you have to tell the interviewer that you have no experience, then you’d better be able to tell him that you have some schooling or some demonstrated skill to make up for it.
Carl said she has a knack for feeling the pulse of the country,
First off, that’s NOT what I want in a President at all. That was Bill Clinton, taking poll after poll after poll and triangulating his position accordingly.
And Palin doesn’t have her pulse on the country, she’s just riding an opportunistic wave of small-government sentiment that is prevalent right now. Which is fine, but its not like she has some sort of clairvoyant insight to position herself as part of the cause.
Your adulation of Palin is baffling, it is the exact same wacky stuff we saw with people about Obama.
I just skimmed through Palin’s book AMERICA BY HEART in order to get some idea of what she actually believes, rather what the Hive’s Agitprop division or its other apparatchiks say she believes. I was impressed that she was familar with Leonard Read, one of the great pro-liberty spokesmen the 20th Century. I doubt the “Uncle Tom” pseudo-conservatives (or the “Uncle Daves,” as I like to call them, in honor of Frum and Brooks) or any of the Bushes are familiar with Read’s work.
> Edward, you said that’s exactly the sort of snobbish remark the elite hurled at Ronald Reagan. The only difference is the pronoun.
Except that they were wrong, Reagan was indeed an articulate champion of conservative principles. Palin is not.
Sorry, David. Unlike you, I am old enough to remember Ronald Reagan. I met Ronald Reagan. I even sat in his chair, when he was Governor of California.
Reagan was the target of exactly the same sort of intellectual snobbery you’re displaying here. Go to the library and look up the things the press said about him at the time. He was a “deeply polarizing figure.”
Every great President is. Do you think the Tories loved George Washington?
And Justin — if the worst thing you can say about Sarah Palin is that she was mean to Katie Couric, you’ve already lost the argument. 🙂
its not like she has some sort of clairvoyant insight to position herself as part of the cause.
Psychic visions are not a requirement for public office, any more than being a law-school professor or winning the Nobel Peace Prize is. Personally, I would rather have a President who doesn’t have any of those things.
Edward, you said Reagan was the target of exactly the same sort of intellectual snobbery you’re displaying here. Go to the library and look up the things the press said about him at the time
The question is not whether one is the “target” or not. I concede that Reagan was indeed a “target” in this sense. The point is that, target or not, Reagan was a great communicator in defense of conservative principles. Simply pointing out that some people made fun of him or looked down on him at the time does not refute this.
Reagan was a great communicator in defense of conservative principles. Simply pointing out that some people made fun of him or looked down on him at the time does not refute this.
Indeed it doesn’t. Nor does looking down on Sarah Palin because she lacks “academic credentials” — the same credentials that Reagan lacked — in any way discredit her. The Presidency is not an academic position!
Ed, for the third time, I never said that a lack of academic credentials disqualifies her. I’m saying if she doesn’t have academic credentials, she needs to have something else. If not experience, if not articulate, then WHAT? What is on her “resume” that makes us think she has the skills and track record necessary for this rather important job?
Edward,
You missed my point entirely. If Sarah Palin is going to be vindictive and petty towards a member of the press whose interview she botched all on her own, I think that seriously calls into question her ability to be a rational actor with world leaders who really know how to push people’s buttons.
If Katie Couric could get under her skin such that, even now, Palin felt compelled to say something about it, how is she going to hold up against real manipulators, like Putin? Populist rhetoric and cute phrases won’t carry her there.
What is on her “resume” that makes us think she has the skills and track record necessary for this rather important job?
Resumes are overrated, David. Bush the First had a great resume. Congressman, Ambassador, director of the CIA, yadda yadda yadda. He was a lousy President. Mike Griffin looked great on paper. Four degrees, yadda yadda yadda. He was a rotten Administrator. Barack Obama has the ultimate resume — law professor, Nobel Prize winner — and yet you still wouldn’t vote for him. Why is that?
I’ll take someone with sound principles over someone who’s had a lot of fancy titles, thank you. As for your judgement about her articulation — again, people said the the same thing about Ronald Reagan. I thought they were wrong at the time, and I think you’re wrong now.
Justin — “all on her own”? Couric wasn’t present at the interview? That’s not how I recall it. Refusing to kiss the feet of the press is not a negative in my book. If you ask me, it’s about time. You betcha!
I’d like to see a President who won’t kiss the feet of Putin or Ahmadinejad, either. Contrary to what you may believe, it’s not the rednecks who get taken in by guys like that. It’s the sophisticated political insiders, every single time. (Look up the word “sophistication” and see what it really means.)
Ed, you said Resumes are overrated
But pointing to the examples you gave just shows that good resumes don’t guarantee success. That is true. Any boss, manager, or business can tell you that about the people they hire. But that doesn’t mean that you can just show up to the interview an expect to get hired without it. This is true for any business, with the sole exception of unskilled labor. But I hope we can agree that POTUS is not such a position.
As for your judgement about her articulation — again, people said the the same thing about Ronald Reagan. I thought they were wrong at the time, and I think you’re wrong now.
Fine, produce a video of a Palin speech that is anywhere near as solid as the video of Reagan I produced earlier in the thread. Good luck.
By “all on her own,” I meant that Palin was who flubbed that interview and that it wasn’t a gotcha from Couric. I honestly don’t know how you interpreted that as me saying that she was in the room by herself.
I don’t expect politicians to “kiss at the feet” of the press, but I do expect them to answer simple questions without embarrassing themselves. I also expect the press to not just be a mouthpiece for said politicians, contrary to what Sharron Angle and Palin seem to think.
I don’t get the impression that you’re particularly interested in criticism of Palin, though, Ed, so I’ll just bid you a good holiday.
I also expect the press to not just be a mouthpiece for said politicians, contrary to what Sharron Angle and Palin seem to think.
How about what Barack Obama seems to think? You know, like when he asked the press why they weren’t asking about the compliments he was getting overseas?
Justin, really. It’s a little tiresome to hear about Sarah Palin’s thin skin, after all of the non-stop bashing she and her family (including her developmentally disabled child) have endured from the media for the past two years, but to completely ignore all of the president’s whining because the media is no longer giving him a 24/7 tongue bath.
Why can’t Palin just be a very nice conservative lady, why try to inflate her into someone who should run for POTUS? She could continue to be a very decent political pundit, and someone to rally the troops at Tea Party gatherings. Maybe even run for some lower office. But POTUS? Why?
If you go in for a job and you have to tell the interviewer that you have no experience, then you’d better be able to tell him that you have some schooling or some demonstrated skill to make up for it.
This statement obviously doesn’t apply to Sarah because she has considerable experience. But as a matter of fact, she has demonstrated a skill, perhaps the most impressive of all, in understanding issues deeply even if she doesn’t articulate in a way that impresses you. This is why I suggest examining transcripts because those do indicate her depth. Frankly she is amazing in her understanding of a wide range of subjects. Trivial pursuit question have nothing to do with intelligence or wisdom. She has both in spades.
But POTUS? Why?
Because this country needs somebody that can actually accomplish things. The right things. Her list of accomplishment is impressive to anyone who is honest.
Obama has shown his only ability is to arrogantly ignore a large segment of this country… while driving their jobs away… while destabilizing our economy… while claiming success of obvious failures… while lying blatantly and repeatedly… while occasionally letting slip what a marxist/socialist tool he is.
My main criteria for choosing between two candidates is “Which one is more pro-freedom?” Or, top put it another way, “Which one, if elected, is more likely to leave me alone?” Clearly, in any race between Palin and the Red Diaper Baby , the pro-freedom choice is Palin. Palin versus any other possible Republican for the nomination, I don’t know at this point; but she seems much more pro-freedom than the Bushes or any other of that Ruling Class Republican croiwd.