Quote:
Originally Posted by KSig RC
I know that's what you think of - but that's not really the functional definition here.
Let's put it this way: does the Republican party think that "intelligence" or "public service" or "seniority" are the most important factors for a VP? Clearly not, or they would simply put that into an equation like some sort of UAW promotion calendar. So yeah - Palin was a failure, not because she wasn't smart enough (how many Americans can give a rational answer to what to do about Georgia?), but because she was not capable of turning enough people on to her to get elected.
Also - every politician is coached on major issues. Every single one. It's why Senators have a staff, it's why the President has a cabinet, et cetera. I know it's an aside, but just saying.
|
There is a difference between being coached on issues and being ADVISED on how certain issues should be handled. It isn't about being able to necessarily give a rational answer about what to do about Georgia on the fly, but more about at least knowing that there is an issue with Georgia in the first place. Not to mention the fact that when she said that she had foreign policy experience because she could SEE Russia, that showed just how clueless she really is about what foreign policy experience entails. I think many people who were able to take a step back and view Palin with an objective eye realized that she really wasn't smart enough for the job. Longstanding ected Republicans switched sides because of her presence on the ticket. That says quite a bit.