McCain-Palin 08 victory?

College Confidential Community
181

<p>I think in this mess of technicalities that we’re calling a debate, we’ve forgotten that all three branches of government, the legislative, executive and judicial, all have one very important thing in common: the law. All three work seperately yet harmoniously together at the same time to make, enforce and interpret laws. </p>

<p>Now, talking from a purely intellectual standpoint, the person who knows the most about the law is Obama. Palin has a degree in Journalism and McCain graduated from Annapolis. Neither had extensive law training. Obama went to one of the best law schools in the country, and was a teacher at law at another top law school. He knows the system inside and out. So going by this, Obama is most qualified. </p>

<p>Now, before you respond to this post, realize that it was just to make a point. Being well versed in the law is arguably just as important as having executive experience. It’s nice to have, but doesn’t necesarily make one more qualified.</p>

<p>When you blow one attribute out of proportion (like I did just now with the law school thing and like Dbate and others have done with “executive experience”), it can seem far more important than it actually is. And in all honesty, it’s not like it’s difficult to switch from being a legislature to being part of the executive branch. </p>

<p>The truth is, it’s not necessarily what kind of experience you have (executive vs legislative) but what you’ve done with it. And as Cervantes and others have shown, Obama has done much more than oil-obsessed, mayor of nowhereville, governor of nowhereville Palin. I’d rather have someone who’s done something in the senate, than someone who’s done negligible stuff as governor of a desolate state (the mayor of NYC has more people to look after than she does for crying out loud…)</p>

<p>Oh, and might I also add that even though Palin may have more “executive experience” (which as I’ve said, doesn’t really matter), Obama has had much more experience on a national level. While Palin was being being governor of lala land in her little corner of the world, Obama had to deal with issues on a national scale. He’s definitely more experienced.</p>

182

<p>

</p>

<p>Then what we have is basically two different views, that can not be debated bc it is based on perception. I think executive is important, you do not, that is why we are voting for two different ppl to be President.</p>

<p>But I am so excited this is the first time I get to vote and it is in such a historic election. I finally get to make decisions that help to run the country, even if my little vote will not have that much of an impact. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Sure in small numbers it matters more, but (taking the faulty assumption that I make :)) 10 months is not significantly more. I also did not say that Obama did nothing in those years, I was just quantifying it for perspective. But from watching the House and senate on C-Span, it seems as if all politicians hardly do anything, their aides do all the work.</p>

183

<p>

</p>

<p>Palin is not oil-obsessed it is just that oil is the dominant economy of Alaska, so she dealt with oil related things. But also another thing that ppl are missing is that even though Alaska by population is small, the economy is very important to America. Alaska supplies about 1/5 of the energy of our nation, which is huge. By being governor of Alaska she has dealt with the largest corporations in the entire world, heck Rex Tillerson came to meet her. Tillerson (who is from Texas, yay Texas) would be on par with any international leader, bc of the scope and importance of his company in the global economy. But her experience is not justed limited to Exxon, the three big oil producers (British Petroleum, ConcoPhillips and Exxon) all interacted with her policies. And those companies are very multinational (my friends my is a VP at Shell and she travels to Amsterdam often). So it would be on par with international diplomacy in terms of economic impact.
Also she was chair of the Alaska Oil and Natural Gas commision, which means that she was running the policies that affect 1/5 of the energy supply of the entire nation.</p>

184

<p>“hahah it wasnt said facetiously alright.”</p>

<p>Hmmm…I’m not so sure. She may have been somewhat serious (no doubt she was), but I don’t think her intent was to say “I know absolutely nothing.” I could be wrong.</p>

<p>“thats scary you would vote for a man running for president who didnt know what the president’s duties are.”</p>

<p>If he’s running his presidential campaign and doesn’t, that’s a different story. That interview was before she was announced as the VP. I find it marginally relevant to totally irrelevant.</p>

185

<p>Just so ppl know and dont post and wait for me to respond. I am about to get off.</p>

186

<p>

</p>

<p>She said it 3 months before she got the nomination. Not exactly a long time ago. She’s going to have to learn on the job then, right? Frankly, we both know McCain picked her for political reasons not based on who’s better to be VP. Even Republicans couldn’t say that she was the second best suited Republican to be VP. They dodged the question by alluding to the fact that she’s more electable. I think people should run as President with no VP’s and then pick the VP later to prevent this kind of action even though that would also engender all sorts of issues as well.</p>

187

<p>“She said it 3 months before she got the nomination. She’s going to have to learn on the job then, right?”</p>

<p>You’re right. McCain is planning to have her locked up in a closet with no coaching, no contact, and no briefing. Learning on the job? I think it’s safe to say all of the candidates will be.</p>

<p>“Frankly, we both know McCain picked her for political reasons.”</p>

<p>I disagree that political reasons were the only ones. That’s a discussion for a different time. But please speak for yourself, thank you.</p>

<p>“I think people should run as President with no VP’s and then pick the VP later to prevent this kind of action even though that would also engender all sorts of issues as well.”</p>

<p>That makes sense.</p>

188

<p>

</p>

<p>While I admit everyone will learn on the job she no doubt has the most learning to do if she doesn’t know what the job engenders. Also, she’s a heartbeat away from the Presidency-sorta scary eh?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Wait so you think she’s the second most qualified Republican to be President in the nation? If not, McCain picked her for political reasons. I think it is apropos to this debate of Palin’s experience.</p>

189

<p>Last post in the near future (I’m off to bed), and possibly at all.</p>

<p>“While I admit everyone will learn on the job she no doubt has the most learning to do if she doesn’t know what the job engenders. Also, she’s a heartbeat away from the Presidency-sorta scary eh?”</p>

<p>Not when I consider that if McCain dies, we get inexperience. If Obama lives, we get inexperience.</p>

<p>I’m sorry, Obama may have more experience. But I don’t find it enough to justify forgetting my personal convictions and voting for him. After all, McCain may live (who would have thought?)</p>

<p>“Wait so you think she’s the second most qualified Republican to be President in the nation? If not, McCain picked her for political reasons.”</p>

<p>Was Biden the most qualified? I really don’t think so. What does qualified even mean, Cervantes? It’s not all a matter of experience, which is why that argument against Obama is not very relevant at all (as is the same argument against Palin). Maybe McCain thinks she’ll pick up quickly. She matches his personality from what I’ve seen, and he will definitely be able to work with her easily (again, from what I’ve seen, which is not much). He may agree with her views. </p>

<p>Of course political reasons are involved. I’m not denying that. But Obama’s pick wasn’t necessarily totally altruistic either.</p>

<p>Look, we disagree. I’m actually all pooped out talking about this; we clearly disagree about some things and agree on others. Personally, I don’t agree with Obama on most things. I would rather have McCain in office than Palin. I’m not so convinced that he’ll die within a year that Palin is even a factor for me.</p>

190

<p>Yes this debate is exhausting but I would like to make a few last points. The only reason I mention McCain dying is that well, he’s at risk. He’s had cancer 4 times and is 72 years old, not necessarily a spring chicken. That’s why most responsible parents write wills they don’t expect to die tomorrow but hey they may die soon. I’m not asking you to vote for him but as you have recognized Obama is more experienced than Palin which is what some were trying to contend. Qualified is an interesting term and can mean many things, but when going Biden vs Palin (barring the issues which I know is very important) Biden is more “qualified” than Palin to most people-Dems and Repubs alike. Even though Biden clearly wasn’t just altruistic he arguably is one of the most experienced Democrats who can be picked as VP in the nation. Palin is one of the least of the Republicans. Even though Palin may have matched McCain’s personality, considering they met only a few times at most and that many people in this country match his personality I don’t think that’s sufficient reason to pick her. Yes, in the long run, this race is still about McCain versus Obama. There’s never been any question about that. It’s just that a lot of people think this first presidential decision McCain made was not that good (and almost all the political strategists regardless of political slant say it is ‘risky’) while most people know Biden is reliable even if unadventurous. That said, gnite.</p>

191

<p>Not that it matters a whole lot. But after picking Palin, McCain raised 7 million dollars online, in about four days. Compare that to the 21 or so million he raised last month, looks like she was a good pick financially.</p>

192

<p>Honestly, would she have been picked with this resume if she were male? We all know the answer. McCain isnt worried about governing, he is worried about winning. That to me is the same lack of judgement that led to his endorsement of Bush and flip flopping on immigration, tax policy. </p>

<p>McCains bad judgement and politics over country is the real story here.</p>

193

<p>

</p>

<p>You have no idea what voting present in the Illinois senate means. You’re just regurgitating right-wing talking points. What’s next, that Obama doesn’t like beer?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>The presidential candidate is the ultimate authority, much like how the president is. Like the president, the candidate has many underlings that do most of the work, but it is up to the top dog to make the final decisions and provide the vision. </p>

<p>You don’t honestly believe that the president actually runs everything from the SEC to the NSA, do you?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Great point. McCain thinks he’s going to live forever when in fact, he’s 72 years old with a history of cancer. Instead of picking a qualified VP who has a good chance of becoming president by emergency, he went with the one that seemingly gave him the best chance for victory for himself.</p>

194

<p>What in the hell are you guys still arguing about? Still talking about Palin not being enthused about a VP position?</p>

<p>[The</a> Corner on National Review Online](<a href=“http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmJhYjBmZjYxZTg3NDQ0NjU4YjA4YjVkOTc1ZjZmYzM=]The”>http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmJhYjBmZjYxZTg3NDQ0NjU4YjA4YjVkOTc1ZjZmYzM=)</p>

<p>Governorship beats senatorship</p>

<p>[VDARE.com:</a> Blog Articles » How Good Was Obama At Running The Harvard Law Review?](<a href=“http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2008/02/12/how-good-was-obama-at-running-the-harvard-law-review/]VDARE.com:”>http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2008/02/12/how-good-was-obama-at-running-the-harvard-law-review/)</p>

<p>Harvard Law Review, a leadership position? Ha!</p>

<p>Bealor, I think it’s amazing. The stupidity of these Bush-haters.</p>

195

<p>Obama has run a terrible campaign I’d say. For a Republican to be this close…</p>

<p>His only advantage really is a liberal media and that Axelrod that manipulated the rules of the nomination process so that even though he lost Nevada, he got more delegates.</p>

196

<p>stupidity? let’s first get into the stupidity of bush why dont we.</p>

197

<p>Well, I thought we were talking about Sarah Palin… steering a bit into Obama vs McCain…or hilariously, Sarah’s “inexperience” compared to Obama’s stint as lawyer, vote register, lousy run as head of the Harvard Law review, his coronation into the senate by way of the machine (Alice Palmer), his many “present” votes, and his lousy stint in the US Senate. </p>

<p>Yes, Bush was not a very good president, but neither was Carter. So??</p>

198

<p>well you were attacking the liberal voters by “pointing” out the STUPIDITY of BUSH-haters when hating bush comes from a great variety of reasons, ie. the stupidity of bush himself.</p>

199

<p>

</p>

<p>Sure so, being governor for a day is better than being senator for 30 years? Point is both time and position are important. Furthermore, some may argue being Senator is more important because Senators know Washington and how to get bills passed which the President needs to do. Also, remember she’s governor of Alaska-they have a different set of issues than most other states.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>So Obama ran a terrible campaign because he was a virtual unknown and was able to beat one of the most established political families in this country to the Presidential nomination? Everyone, Republicans and Democrats alike give him kudos to his campaign well run. However the Republicans think he’s an empty suit and say thats all he knows how to do. At least get the points straight. Also, Axelrod didn’t manipulate anything, those were the rules. The only reason McCain is this close is because he’s a different type of Republican to the American public. They are still thinking about his 2000 maverick image and deny the past 8 years thinking he just whored to the Republican base to get his spot. I’m not so sure.</p>

200

<p>

</p>

<p>I do not know what your problem is, but why do you keep talking about these right wing ppl. Really in the real world ppl are not right and left, there is fluidity of opinion, bc someone criticizes someone it is not a reguriation, but rather a legitamate criticism. </p>

<p>I said we don’t look to present votes, bc we can not use them as a basis for understanding how he will decide things in the future. Often in the bills that pertained to abortion issues Obama would vote present on the basis that he objected to a portion of the bill but not entirely. Which means that we do not know which portion he agreed or disagreed with, so therefore can not be used as a basis for knowing what his future actions are.
If you are going to incessantly refer to ppl like Bill O’reily or Sean hannity instead of actually answering legitmate arguements then do not respond.</p>

<p>You can not respond to criticism without screaming about random ppl that no one was talking about then do not respond. Look at Cervantes or mathmajor. They are able to respond without yelling about right wingers attacking Obama. Respond with legitamate arguements, not cope outs.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>No it is not, on decision making towards policy, the candidate does not make decisions alone that is why he has advisors. But again you are mistaking running a campaign with leading it. The running of a campaign is the executive experience, like handling where volunteers will be, who to call, and settign dates for fundraisers. All those things are done by the campaign manager, bc he MANAGES the campaign.</p>