Palin gives keynote speech at 'tea party' gathering

[KSig RC]

Well, the Tea Party movement's already-specious character (great concept, dubious execution) really isn't helped by having Palin involved.

I mean, her run as AK Governor really went directly against what the Tea Party portrays as its central tenets . . . also, there's the "not that smart, even for a politician" thing.

This smacks of a publicity move by the party - which is yet another step toward "same ol' politics" by the Tea Party.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by trevorlawrence

Mark my words, they will be a force to be reckoned with by 2012!

The question is, will they be more than a spoiler group a la Perot's Reform Party.

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Well, the Tea Party movement's already-specious character (great concept, dubious execution) really isn't helped by having Palin involved.

I mean, her run as AK Governor really went directly against what the Tea Party portrays as its central tenets . . . also, there's the "not that smart, even for a politician" thing.

This.

[HDL66]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

This is my thing. I just don't have a lot of confidence in her skill set, organizational ability, or her intelligence to be President. There's something to be said for surrounding yourself with the right people, but I don't even think she could do that.

I think her best role is what she's doing now: political commentator and conservative "activist." (I also think it's Mike Huckabee's best role as well) I hope that's the role she chooses going into the election. I just don't think she's good for the Republican party, and she represents some issues I as a Republican have with certain factions of the party.

I am as conservative as they come, and I agree with this (referring to Palin.)

Originally Posted by Kevin

Maybe she's a nice lady and all, but she's not Commander in Chief material. I mean, she's just fine at giving speeches and making folksy statements, but running a country requires a different skill set.

OK, but let's think about what we voted into office instead. A nice man who is EXCELLENT at giving speeches, but his resume was starkly THIN as well. No executive experience at all, no experience in the private sector, never had to meet a payroll, and hadn't even completed his first term as senator. Oh, he's good at reading a teleprompter, but evidently hasn't come across the word CORPSMAN in his first rate education. (When you mispronounce something THREE TIMES in a speech, it's obvious you aren't familiar with the word.) But he is now our Commander in Chief. I'll bet that reassured our armed servicemen (and women).

Now don't tell me I am being petty about the corpsman controversy (which the MSM conveniently ignores.) Dan Quayle was pilloried for misspelling potato and totally sidelined for any further political aspirations. If Sarah Palin had mispronounced the word, you would still be hearing it every morning on MSNBC.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by HDL66

Now don't tell me I am being petty about the corpsman controversy

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by HDL66

OK, but let's think about what we voted into office instead. A nice man who is EXCELLENT at giving speeches, but his resume was starkly THIN as well. No executive experience at all, no experience in the private sector, never had to meet a payroll, and hadn't even completed his first term as senator. Oh, he's good at reading a teleprompter, but evidently hasn't come across the word CORPSMAN in his first rate education. (When you mispronounce something THREE TIMES in a speech, it's obvious you aren't familiar with the word.) But he is now our Commander in Chief. I'll bet that reassured our armed servicemen (and women).

Now don't tell me I am being petty about the corpsman controversy (which the MSM conveniently ignores.) Dan Quayle was pilloried for misspelling potato and totally sidelined for any further political aspirations. If Sarah Palin had mispronounced the word, you would still be hearing it every morning on MSNBC.

You're not being "petty" in a true sense - instead, you're begging the question. You're simply stating these "qualifications" without any evidence that a.) he doesn't have the ability to do them, b.) experience demonstrates ability, c.) the qualifications even matter, and so on.

So yeah - I'd rather you were being petty than fallacious.

[RU OX Alum]

The tea party movement started out as non-partisan, moved to multi-partisan, and is very quickly becoming partisan (the part of the republican party most likely to break off/force a split)

[DaemonSeid]

But...Palin quit her job as governor, so if she ever runs for any office again, don't you think that her resigning will be among THE FIRST things that will come to people's mind?

Forget mispronounciations!

[Kevin]

Obama = Editor of the Harvard Law Review
Palin = 'C' Student at the University of Idaho, B.S. in Journalism.

One is just slightly more impressive than the other, dontchathink?

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Obama = Editor of the Harvard Law Review
Palin = 'C' Student at the University of Idaho, B.S. in Journalism.

One is just slightly more impressive than the other, dontchathink?

Yeah, I wouldn't exactly call his resume thin: Editor of Harvard Law Review, holder of degrees from two Ivy League institutions, essentially could have had a federal clerkship if he wanted (look at quotes from Judge Abner Mikva), Professor at University of Chicago Law School, civil rights attorney, State Senator, then US Senator.

I'm not a big fan of President Obama, but it's a stretch to call his resume "thin." He did some pretty impressive things before his election as President.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Yeah, I wouldn't exactly call his resume thin: Editor of Harvard Law Review, holder of degrees from two Ivy League institutions, essentially could have had a federal clerkship if he wanted (look at quotes from Judge Abner Mikva), Professor at University of Chicago Law School, civil rights attorney, State Senator, then US Senator.

I'm not a big fan of President Obama, but it's a stretch to call his resume "thin." He did some pretty impressive things before his election as President.

I agree 100%.

[Sadfly]

(Didn't it look she was wearing a bump-it or extensions or something? Reminded me of when women would wear a "fall" but you could still tell that it wasn't all their real hair.)

[HDL66]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Yeah, I wouldn't exactly call his resume thin: Editor of Harvard Law Review, holder of degrees from two Ivy League institutions, essentially could have had a federal clerkship if he wanted (look at quotes from Judge Abner Mikva), Professor at University of Chicago Law School, civil rights attorney, State Senator, then US Senator.

I'm not a big fan of President Obama, but it's a stretch to call his resume "thin." He did some pretty impressive things before his election as President.

I guess it depends on what job you are applying for. His resume is impressive. . . but I still maintain his RELEVANT experience was lacking when he was running to be elected CEO of the only superpower in the world. The man may have had a world class education and been distinguished in legal circles, but would you hire a CEO of a multitrillion dollar operation who had had NO executive experience? Carter, Reagan, Clinton and Bush II were all governors, and Bush I was Vice President. What executive experience did Obama have? None that I can see from the list provided above. NONE. He also, as I mentioned earlier, has had no private sector experience or had first hand experience as an employer. Pretty dicey place for on-the-job training.

I suppose you think his merits also qualified him for the Nobel Peace prize?

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by HDL66

I guess it depends on what job you are applying for. His resume is impressive. . . but I still maintain his RELEVANT experience was lacking when he was running to be elected CEO of the only superpower in the world. The man may have had a world class education and been distinguished in legal circles, but would you hire a CEO of a multitrillion dollar operation who had had NO executive experience? Carter, Reagan, Clinton and Bush II were all governors, and Bush I was Vice President. What executive experience did Obama have? None that I can see from the list provided above. NONE. He also, as I mentioned earlier, has had no private sector experience or had first hand experience as an employer. Pretty dicey place for on-the-job training.

If President of the United States is such a singular position, then why would anything be adequate preparation?

Also, you really think ARKANSAS is similar to a "multi-trillion-dollar corporation" in any way? Come on. The comparison you're making is surface-level - the day-to-day management of Federal "employees" is incidental at best for the POTUS. Budget-balancing is remarkably different at a Federal level than at a corporate level. The position is much more about ideas and personality than any specific "CEO" skill, and you've said nothing to prove otherwise. Like, at all. Just because it is called the Executive Branch does not mean that the requirements are the same as a corporate executive.

Oh - GWB had a LOT of private-sector experience . . . and he was a miserable failure, both in the private sector and as President. Reagan's tenure as California governor is hilariously specious to cite, because according to your own logic, he was wholly and completely unqualified for the job when he got it.

What experience is "relevant" to being the most powerful man on the planet? Being the most powerful man in Little Rock? Come on.

I suppose you think his merits also qualified him for the Nobel Peace prize?

Absolutely non sequitur - does not follow at all, and shows just how awkward your line of thinking has become . . . the guy you're talking to is a fairly hard-core Republican.

[MysticCat]

^^^ What he said . . .

. . . well, except for the hard-core Republican part.

Originally Posted by KSig RC

The comparison you're making is surface-level - the day-to-day management of Federal "employees" is nonexistent for the POTUS.

Fixed it for you.

Just because it is called the Executive Branch does not mean that the requirements are the same as a corporate executive.

As anyone who paid attention in civics class would know.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by HDL66

I guess it depends on what job you are applying for. His resume is impressive. . . but I still maintain his RELEVANT experience was lacking when he was running to be elected CEO of the only superpower in the world. The man may have had a world class education and been distinguished in legal circles, but would you hire a CEO of a multitrillion dollar operation who had had NO executive experience? Carter, Reagan, Clinton and Bush II were all governors, and Bush I was Vice President. What executive experience did Obama have? None that I can see from the list provided above. NONE. He also, as I mentioned earlier, has had no private sector experience or had first hand experience as an employer. Pretty dicey place for on-the-job training. ?

As RC said, POTUS is a fairly unique job, and I'd dare say that there's NO relevant experience to truly prepare you for the position.

What his background DOES show is that he's an extremely intelligent guy with the capacity to take in a large amount of information and analyze it, and, even more importantly, it shows that he has the capacity to hire smart people to help him. To me, those are things that are much more important than any prior "executive" experience.

Also, if we want to be completely accurate here, it's not true to say he had "no private sector experience." He worked for a Chicago-area law firm for over 10 years.

Originally Posted by HDL66

I suppose you think his merits also qualified him for the Nobel Peace prize?

What does this have to do with anything? Like RC said, I'm not exactly a fan of the President (although I didn't know I qualified as "hardcore," haha). If you want to argue the point, stick to the issue, don't try to bring up this other stuff to show some hidden bias.