Palin gives keynote speech at 'tea party' gathering

[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.)

[DrPhil]

LOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktTFtqK_XwQ

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I sincerely do not mean this to be a dick, so if you don't mind me asking . . . why?

You mean going back to the last Presidential election when she was first selected for the ticket? That's when I'm talking about. I mean, I liked her through the election as well. I wish she had just retreated from the limelight then and worked on her political weaknesses. Now, I'm just kind of tired of her, and I don't really need whatever it is she offers.

I suppose I excused most of her faults because I think she comparable to most politicians but criticized and scrutinized more harshly, and I simply preferred her persona to that of Obama and/or Biden. Regular gal hockey mom works on me better than nuanced, much-farther-left than I am Chicago cool guy or verbally incontinent lifelong politician from Delaware.

I think some of why I liked her is just a matter of personal psychology, but most of what I knew about her official policies and political actions in Alaska as Governor, I liked okay. Alaska brings some problems to the table as a state if you want to carefully examine the fiscal relationship between citizens and the federal government. But there wasn't much that Palin actually did that would have bothered me had she been the governor of Georgia (that I can think of right now anyway).

ETA: Basically, I liked what I knew about how she governed Alaska. Troopergate and Todd's nefarious influence didn't keep me up at night.

[DaemonSeid]

Great....and now Angela McGlowan is running for the Mississippi HoR seat.


smh

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Great....and now Angela McGlowan is running for the Mississippi HoR seat.


smh

No offence, but I hope she decides to live Maryland if she's elected.

[DaemonSeid]

Well she's from Mississippi...so it only makes sense.

[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.

[agzg]

Ahh... nice to see the crazy train is rolling along nicely in spite of the snow/earthquake.

[HDL66]

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.

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

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

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.

Originally Posted by KSigkid

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.

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.

Several points.

I do agree that nothing truly prepares you to be POTUS. However, all the recent previous presidents that I cited had a breadth of experience--a package of preparation--that Obama just does not have.

Please note that I did not say a multitrillion $ CORPORATION but OPERATION. The experience of the previous presidents were in the governmental executive branch, not the corporate world. I'm not sure why citing Reagan's 2 terms as California governor is "hilariously specious"--I think being the head of the executive branch in a state that produces 13% of the US GDP and would rank at about 8th as an independent nation in the world economy is a fairly significant qualification. Certainly more so than being an attorney or law school professor.

As far as the jab at Clinton "being the most powerful man in Little Rock," he also had an impressive education CV IN ADDITION to practical experience governing. He was also very active on the national scene as head of the DLC. Again, breadth of experience and and relevant leadership.

I agree that the Nobel issue does not relate specifically to this discussion. But it goes to this point: I think a significant # of people, especially in the MSM and certainly in the intellectual elite, champion Obama because he is a charismatic man, spectacular orator, and he mirrors their goals and values, not because he has produced anything that is meritous. It seems he often gets a pass on everything from his qualifications for president to what he has or hasn't accomplished as president.

And finally, re: mentioning private sector experience (preferably not just as an employee but an employer.) The reason I think that is important is that small business is truly the engine of the US economy. For all his advisors, I don't think Obama has a clue what effect his policies and the threat of his policies (cap and trade, higher health care premiums, forced health care coverage, higher taxes, higher national debt and devaluing of the dollar) really have on the mind of a small businessman. It seems Obama thinks if he can just lend them more cheap money, they'll add jobs. With all the other issues in the background, it's not working.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by HDL66

I do agree that nothing truly prepares you to be POTUS. However, all the recent previous presidents that I cited had a breadth of experience--a package of preparation--that Obama just does not have.

And those Presidents, in turn, showed massive volatility in their success as President (and some would say ability to be President, as well). In fact, there's really no evidence any specific part of that 'breadth of skill' helped or had positive impact - certainly about half of those Presidents, if not more, kind of sucked.

I'm not sure why citing Reagan's 2 terms as California governor is "hilariously specious"--I think being the head of the executive branch in a state that produces 13% of the US GDP and would rank at about 8th as an independent nation in the world economy is a fairly significant qualification.

What was Reagan's resume at the time he was elected governor? Think about that for a minute, then apply that logic to your larger point here.

And finally, re: mentioning private sector experience (preferably not just as an employee but an employer.) The reason I think that is important is that small business is truly the engine of the US economy. For all his advisors, I don't think Obama has a clue what effect his policies and the threat of his policies (cap and trade, higher health care premiums, forced health care coverage, higher taxes, higher national debt and devaluing of the dollar) really have on the mind of a small businessman. It seems Obama thinks if he can just lend them more cheap money, they'll add jobs. With all the other issues in the background, it's not working.

What was the last President to come from a 'true' small-business background (beyond "charging $300/hour for their time" or similar)? I can't think of a single one, ever.

Presidents historically just don't come from that kind of background.

Separately (and not directed specifically at you), it's kind of hilarious that we have a "Tea Party" movement directed at a return to Constitutional rule/small government when we just elected a legit Constitutional scholar. Ideology uber alles I suppose.