Palin gives keynote speech at 'tea party' gathering

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

Good point - I'm not sure that using Bush II or Carter as examples are good ways to make a point.

[HDL66]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

I wasn't talking about qualifications for governor. I am talking about what I want as qualifications for president of the United States. You need to get experience somewhere, and I don't want it to be on the job in the Oval Office.

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

Some people would say Truman was a very successful president, and of course he didn't have a great resume. You can make almost any point with an anecdote/example and we could go back and forth. I still don't think it's an unreasonable position to want a more experienced vs less experienced candidate. (As an aside, Truman did have real small business experience--and was a miserable failure there lol) I suppose that my biggest objection to Obama (other than concrete ones like his policies) is what Charles Krauthammer terms "The Audacity of Vanity." And I quote:

Americans are beginning to notice Obama's elevated opinion of himself. There's nothing new about narcissism in politics. Every senator looks in the mirror and sees a president. Nonetheless, has there ever been a presidential nominee with a wider gap between his estimation of himself and the sum total of his lifetime achievements?
Obama is a three-year senator without a single important legislative achievement to his name, a former Illinois state senator who voted "present" nearly 130 times. As president of the Harvard Law Review, as law professor and as legislator, has he ever produced a single notable piece of scholarship? Written a single memorable article? His most memorable work is a biography of his favorite subject: himself.
It is a subject upon which he can dilate effortlessly. In his victory speech upon winning the nomination, Obama declared it a great turning point in history -- "generations from now we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment" -- when, among other wonders, "the rise of the oceans began to slow." As Hudson Institute economist Irwin Stelzer noted in his London Daily Telegraph column, "Moses made the waters recede, but he had help." Obama apparently works alone.

The op ed was in the Washington Post in July 2008. You can read the whole thing here http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...071701839.html.

And if you want to argue with Charles Krauthammer. . . be my guest.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by HDL66

Americans are beginning to notice Obama's elevated opinion of himself.

They would've noticed that from the beginning if they took their heads out of their asses.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by HDL66

I am talking about what I want as qualifications for president of the United States.

Originally Posted by HDL66

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. . . .

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.

So would I be correct in assuming that you did not believe John McCain was qualified either? He had no private sector experience and no executive branch experience. By the criteria you're setting out, it seems that the only person on the ticket who was qualified was Sarah Palin.

I think it's completely legit to take experience into account when deciding who is going to get your vote, although different people will give varying degrees of weight to different types of experience. But when I see an argument like you (or Krauthammer) are making, particularly when the argument fits so well with why you think Obama's policies are flawed and aren't working, the arguments come across more as self-justification than as objective assessment.

BTW, I'd love for you or Krauthammer to find me a president from the last 50 years or so who didn't have an elevated opinion of himself, or a credible presidential candidate for that matter. An elevated opinion of one's self is pretty much required if you're going to run for President.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by HDL66

Some people would say Truman was a very successful president, and of course he didn't have a great resume. You can make almost any point with an anecdote/example and we could go back and forth. I still don't think it's an unreasonable position to want a more experienced vs less experienced candidate. (As an aside, Truman did have real small business experience--and was a miserable failure there lol) I suppose that my biggest objection to Obama (other than concrete ones like his policies) is what Charles Krauthammer terms "The Audacity of Vanity." And I quote:

Americans are beginning to notice Obama's elevated opinion of himself. There's nothing new about narcissism in politics. Every senator looks in the mirror and sees a president. Nonetheless, has there ever been a presidential nominee with a wider gap between his estimation of himself and the sum total of his lifetime achievements?
Obama is a three-year senator without a single important legislative achievement to his name, a former Illinois state senator who voted "present" nearly 130 times. As president of the Harvard Law Review, as law professor and as legislator, has he ever produced a single notable piece of scholarship? Written a single memorable article? His most memorable work is a biography of his favorite subject: himself.
It is a subject upon which he can dilate effortlessly. In his victory speech upon winning the nomination, Obama declared it a great turning point in history -- "generations from now we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment" -- when, among other wonders, "the rise of the oceans began to slow." As Hudson Institute economist Irwin Stelzer noted in his London Daily Telegraph column, "Moses made the waters recede, but he had help." Obama apparently works alone.

The op ed was in the Washington Post in July 2008. You can read the whole thing here http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...071701839.html.

And if you want to argue with Charles Krauthammer. . . be my guest.

That wasn't the point you were making previously, though. Your earlier point was that his resume was too thin to be President. Saying that he's conceited is a completed different issue, and no one on this thread is arguing for or against that point.

People want different things in their President, different ideologies and different areas of experience. Some people want "insiders," some people want "outsiders," some people want veterans, some people want those with foreign policy expertise. That's fine, and that's part of the reason people vote for different candidates.

I think, though, there's a difference between saying "He doesn't have the qualifications I would want in a President," and saying "His resume is too thin to be qualified to be President." One can ask for certain qualifications and yet still recognize that the present qualifications are more than adequate.

[Little32]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

BTW, I'd love for you or Krauthammer to find me a president from the last 50 years or so who didn't have an elevated opinion of himself, or a credible presidential candidate for that matter. An elevated opinion of one's self is pretty much required if you're going to run for President.

This. Who but someone with a more than healthy dose of self-esteem would even consider the job.

Other than that, I am finding the discourse enjoyable. Carry on.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

So would I be correct in assuming that you did not believe John McCain was qualified either? He had no private sector experience and no executive branch experience. By the criteria you're setting out, it seems that the only person on the ticket who was qualified was Sarah Palin.

I think it's completely legit to take experience into account when deciding who is going to get your vote, although different people will give varying degrees of weight to different types of experience. But when I see an argument like you (or Krauthammer) are making, particularly when the argument fits so well with why you think Obama's policies are flawed and aren't working, the arguments come across more as self-justification than as objective assessment.

BTW, I'd love for you or Krauthammer to find me a president from the last 50 years or so who didn't have an elevated opinion of himself, or a credible presidential candidate for that matter. An elevated opinion of one's self is pretty much required if you're going to run for President.

But what private sector experience did Palin have, at least that would qualify under HDL's criteria? I know she helped in her husband's commercial fishing business, but I haven't seen anything saying that she took some major responsbility in the business.

I'll also agree that any Presidential candidate is going to have an elevated opinion of himself. It's absolutely a job requirement. If you're going to take the type of criticism you take as President, and if you're going to make major decisions that affect the lives of people all over the country (and all over the world), you have to have that elevated opinion of yourself. If not, you'd be constantly waffling on every potential decision.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

But what private sector experience did Palin have, at least that would qualify under HDL's criteria? I know she helped in her husband's commercial fishing business, but I haven't seen anything saying that she took some major responsbility in the business.

Hey, I was giving her the benefit of the doubt on that one.

[HDL66]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

So would I be correct in assuming that you did not believe John McCain was qualified either? He had no private sector experience and no executive branch experience. By the criteria you're setting out, it seems that the only person on the ticket who was qualified was Sarah Palin.

I think it's completely legit to take experience into account when deciding who is going to get your vote, although different people will give varying degrees of weight to different types of experience. But when I see an argument like you (or Krauthammer) are making, particularly when the argument fits so well with why you think Obama's policies are flawed and aren't working, the arguments come across more as self-justification than as objective assessment.

BTW, I'd love for you or Krauthammer to find me a president from the last 50 years or so who didn't have an elevated opinion of himself, or a credible presidential candidate for that matter. An elevated opinion of one's self is pretty much required if you're going to run for President.

Originally Posted by KSigkid

That wasn't the point you were making previously, though. Your earlier point was that his resume was too thin to be President. Saying that he's conceited is a completed different issue, and no one on this thread is arguing for or against that point.

People want different things in their President, different ideologies and different areas of experience. Some people want "insiders," some people want "outsiders," some people want veterans, some people want those with foreign policy expertise. That's fine, and that's part of the reason people vote for different candidates.

I think, though, there's a difference between saying "He doesn't have the qualifications I would want in a President," and saying "His resume is too thin to be qualified to be President." One can ask for certain qualifications and yet still recognize that the present qualifications are more than adequate.

Originally Posted by KSigkid

But what private sector experience did Palin have, at least that would qualify under HDL's criteria? I know she helped in her husband's commercial fishing business, but I haven't seen anything saying that she took some major responsbility in the business.

I'll also agree that any Presidential candidate is going to have an elevated opinion of himself. It's absolutely a job requirement. If you're going to take the type of criticism you take as President, and if you're going to make major decisions that affect the lives of people all over the country (and all over the world), you have to have that elevated opinion of yourself. If not, you'd be constantly waffling on every potential decision.

If anyone thinks that this:
Obama is a three-year senator without a single important legislative achievement to his name, a former Illinois state senator who voted "present" nearly 130 times. As president of the Harvard Law Review, as law professor and as legislator, has he ever produced a single notable piece of scholarship? Written a single memorable article? His most memorable work is a biography of his favorite subject: himself.
describes a robust set of qualifications for president, we will just have to agree to disagree. My initial point was, indeed, that his resume was thin. The point about his arrogance is an additional point, but does not negate the clear conclusion that I have that he does have very limited preparation to be the leader of the free world.

It is true that John McCain did not have gov. executive experience, but the choice was between two candidates that did not. The American people typically elect someone with that experience, at least in recent history. This time that choice was not available after nominations were made. But McCain was still eminently more qualified than Obama, IMHO. He had a vast amount of experience with the military and foreign affairs, which we have not even touched on (except for the "corpsman" comment). Obama, to the best of my knowledge, has no military experience and precious little foreign policy exposure. McCain has years of experience in the Senate and reached across party lines--some Repubs would say way too much--to try to achieve legislative ends. In what way did Obama prove himself to be an effective legislator either at the state or federal level? Can you think of any?? I guess this goes back to my point about the breadth of experience and package of preparation. Obviously you'll never find someone who has everything (ie also exec experience and private sector experience.) While Obama was distinguished in his education and legal career, he was not well rounded in his preparation for the job that he now finds himself in.

Two additional points:

I never said that Sarah Palin was qualified, in fact my first post I indicated that I wouldn't support her for a Presidential bid. But she was not on the top of the ticket in 2009, McCain was. That made a big difference to me. She might have grown into the job, but it was a job that I was electing McCain to fill.

Second, with regard to Obama's high opinion of himself. When you elect a president, it's kind of like hiring a surgeon. They'd better have a little bit of a swagger, or you don't want to put your life (or country) in their hands. Reagan and Churchill would be examples. Krauthammer's point, which I agree with, however, is that there [has never been] a presidential nominee with a wider gap between his estimation of himself and the sum total of his lifetime achievements? Self confidence is one thing. Obama's narcissism without corresponding achievement is another.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by HDL66

If anyone thinks that this:
Obama is a three-year senator without a single important legislative achievement to his name, a former Illinois state senator who voted "present" nearly 130 times. As president of the Harvard Law Review, as law professor and as legislator, has he ever produced a single notable piece of scholarship? Written a single memorable article? His most memorable work is a biography of his favorite subject: himself.
describes a robust set of qualifications for president, we will just have to agree to disagree. My initial point was, indeed, that his resume was thin. The point about his arrogance is an additional point, but does not negate the clear conclusion that I have that he does have very limited preparation to be the leader of the free world.

But that doesn't describe the sum total of his experience or qualifications. It also by implicitly downplays the listed accomplishments.

Originally Posted by HDL66

It is true that John McCain did not have gov. executive experience, but the choice was between two candidates that did not. The American people typically elect someone with that experience, at least in recent history. This time that choice was not available after nominations were made. But McCain was still eminently more qualified than Obama, IMHO. He had a vast amount of experience with the military and foreign affairs, which we have not even touched on (except for the "corpsman" comment). Obama, to the best of my knowledge, has no military experience and precious little foreign policy exposure. McCain has years of experience in the Senate and reached across party lines--some Repubs would say way too much--to try to achieve legislative ends. In what way did Obama prove himself to be an effective legislator either at the state or federal level? Can you think of any?? I guess this goes back to my point about the breadth of experience and package of preparation. Obviously you'll never find someone who has everything (ie also exec experience and private sector experience.) While Obama was distinguished in his education and legal career, he was not well rounded in his preparation for the job that he now finds himself in.

There's a fundamental difference between being a Congressperson and being President. Also, it's not like McCain had a variety of experiences going for him when he ran - he had been a Senator and in the armed forces.

Originally Posted by HDL66

Second, with regard to Obama's high opinion of himself. When you elect a president, it's kind of like hiring a surgeon. They'd better have a little bit of a swagger, or you don't want to put your life (or country) in their hands. Reagan and Churchill would be examples. Krauthammer's point, which I agree with, however, is that there [has never been] a presidential nominee with a wider gap between his estimation of himself and the sum total of his lifetime achievements? Self confidence is one thing. Obama's narcissism without corresponding achievement is another.

I still think that your (and by extension Krauthammer's) definition of "corresponding achievement" is far too narrow. Look, he may not have had a laundry list full of decades of service, but his resume included some darn impressive accomplishments, which can't really be downplayed.

I also think that Krauthammer's opinion shows a stunning lack of historical awareness. There are certainly other nominees with a larger gap between their self-perception and reality.

[DaemonSeid]

HDL...So this whole rant is for you to say, "I don't like Obama as President." Right?

Ok...thanks.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by HDL66

I never said that Sarah Palin was qualified, in fact my first post I indicated that I wouldn't support her for a Presidential bid. But she was not on the top of the ticket in 2009, McCain was. That made a big difference to me.

True. She would have been Veep to an elderly man with a history of health problems. That made a big difference to me.

(Well, that and, as I noted on GC when he chose her, the stunningly bad tactical move of undercutting his best argument -- Obama's lack of experience -- by choosing her. See, I never said I ignored his relative lack of experience. I just didn't htperbolize it either.)

Originally Posted by KSigkid

I also think that Krauthammer's opinion shows a stunning lack of historical awareness. There are certainly other nominees with a larger gap between their self-perception and reality.

Yep. It's all hyperbole.

[rhoyaltempest]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

But what private sector experience did Palin have, at least that would qualify under HDL's criteria? I know she helped in her husband's commercial fishing business, but I haven't seen anything saying that she took some major responsbility in the business.

I'll also agree that any Presidential candidate is going to have an elevated opinion of himself. It's absolutely a job requirement. If you're going to take the type of criticism you take as President, and if you're going to make major decisions that affect the lives of people all over the country (and all over the world), you have to have that elevated opinion of yourself. If not, you'd be constantly waffling on every potential decision.

Exactly. You have to possess an extreme amount of confidence to even think that you can run a country such as ours and then to actually go through with running for president takes even more. Whether a person lets their confidence show or takes a more modest approach is another story entirely.

[VandalSquirrel]

I read one article where she was receiving emails from experts on particular topics. Obviously she isn't using her background in journalism or her education from the University of Idaho because being able to research multiple sources and draw your own conclusions is something UI promotes in the curriculum.

I'm pretty sure these "experts" are people who tell her what she wants to hear.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by demost

That is ironic. You started the thread because you don't like Sarah Palin.

Really you a mind reader now? The only comment he made in his first post had nothing to do with Palin, but with the Tea Party movement.