As opposed to Obama, Biden and McCain who have governed nothing and no one

I wouldn’t endorse Obama for the same reason. I consider 30ish years in the Senate as plenty of experience.

I forget where I read the following line of analysis, but it’s brilliant. By actuarial statistics, McCain has something like an 85% chance of surviving his first term, and Obama something like a 98% chance. McCain would be succeeded by someone with real executive experience – Palin. Meanwhile, Obama has no real executive experience, and Biden the same. So, with McCain-Palin we have a 15% chance of being governed by someone with real executive experience… and with Obama-Biden, a zero percent chance.

Demands of Governorship of small populous state vs. demands of President. Governing 750,000 vs. 305,000,000 – Still small potato(e)s in comparison.

As opposed to Obama, Biden and McCain who have goverened nothing and no one.

I didn’t want McCain to pick Palin. I wanted to save her for 2012 and give her some more executive experience. It looks like she will get that anyway, and I will support her (or Bobby Jindal) full-bore in 2012.

1) Demands of being a mayor of a small town vs. demands of being President. Not in any way comparable. I don’t care how well this person did, one in their right mind would elect the mayor of Selma California to the Presidency. Need not say more.

2) Demands of Governorship of small populous state vs. demands of President. Governing 750,000 vs. 305,000,000 – Still small potato(e)s in comparison. Alaska’s entire population is not even twice as large as Fresno’s at 410,000. One of the reasons Mike Huckabee and, on the other side of the isle, Bill Richards didn’t get the nod was that the states they both govern are small populous states, 3 and 2 mil respectively. Look at the mediocrity we got with Bill Clinton. And they were Gov’s for six years or more. Palin has barely two under her belt.

3) Here is a fair assessment of her record. Yes, it’s not bad. Some very good. But there has been a lot of exaggeration coming from her camp. Earmarks. Bridge To Nowhere. Pipeline Hype. Note that all my sources, save ABC News, are considered conservative leaning.

OK. I could give all this a pass if I would hear Palin give well thought out answers to easy and predictable questions she’s been asked. But all we get is stuff like this:

Well, Americans are caring about the problems in the economy of course And wanting to know what those long term solutions are that our ticket can provide and what the other ticket is proposing so when you talk though about what it is that we are proposing and what it is that Barack Obama is proposing again it is relevant to connect that association that he has with Ayers–not so much he as a person Ayers, but the whole situation and the truthfulness and the judgment there that you must question if again he’s not being forthright in all of his answers as to how did you know him, when did you know him, why would you continue to be associated with him!? It makes you wonder about the forthrightedness,…

Or this:

Couric: Why isn’t it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries? … Instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?

Palin: Ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up the economy – Oh, it’s got to be about job creation too. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions.

These are non-answers. There is no depth there. When the teleprompter is taken away, she does not show much understanding of issues at hand.

When she was first nominated, I was supportive and, on the face of it, liked the pick. But as I do with every new candidate, I wanted to see her in action to assess whether she is up to the job. I did not prejudge her one way or the other, but evaluated her based on her prior experience, record and her command of national issues. Her resume is thin, so more weight was given to her grasp of the major issues facing the country. In this regard, she has failed miserably. There is nothing beyond the mangled talking point. Simply put, Sarah Palin is not ready for the job of being President or VP.

Me am tired. I’m going to sleep.

How can you bag on Obama for his many verbal obfuscations, yet excuse Palin for the same thing?

That’s a misrepresentation of my views. (If it’s directed at me.)

PS. I’ll be on the road for most of the day (Sonic-Mate’s bro is getting “marr’d” in SacTown, so I probably won’t be able to answer until this evening.

A) Alaska may be one of the least populated states (so is Delaware for that matter, and Biden doesnt even run it), but it also confers more power and responsibility upon its Governor than any other state save MA and NY.

B) Palin has precisely as much elected experience as TR did.

C) The idea that the Bush presidency has not turned out well because of a sub-prime mortgage meltdown he warned Congress about 17 times caused by socialist Democrat policies that Democrats are circling the wagons around to this day is simply ridiculous and untenable. FDR’s policies greatly prolonged the Great Depression and he is, rightly or wrongly, widely considered one of our greatest presidents. President Bush, on the other hand, brought us very quickly out of the dot.com recession, prevented us from entering into a second recession after the nations financial center was destroyed in the 9/11 attacks, presided over an economic boom longer, stronger and more fundamentally sound than the widely-hailed dot.com bubble, kept us safe for seven years when most people wondered if we’d be safe for a week after the 9/11 attacks, did so (contrary to the wailings of the insane left) without any loss of American liberty (compare that to FDR, Wilson or Lincoln just for starters), removed two dangerous rogue regimes, fought a war that the opposition party initially voted for but then decided to undermine and tried their very hardest to turn into a defeat for political gain and won it anyway (best analogy: Bush won Vietnam), and lastly, whose economic policies have us weathering the financial crisis better than any other nation, and depending on what the next president does, may have us recovering from it in fairly short order.

Now lets compare that to the extremely well-spoken president who ignored the threat from terrorism, allowed Bin Laden to get away lest he pay a political price, recognized the danger posed by Saddam, declared that as a matter of national security he must be removed, but did nothing about it, put up the barriers between intelligence agencies that prevented us from uncovering the 9/11 plot so that his administration could funnel campaign contributions from overseas without detection, is responsible for the expansion of the policy that is responsible for our current economic meltdown, caused the defeat in Somalia that convinced Bin Laden America was nothing more than a “paper tiger”, used tanks against the American people, and sued the cornerstone of the tech sector at the height of the dot com bubble.

Shall we compare his policies to the well-spoken and “brilliant” Jimmy Carter? The policies that the current Democratic candidate supports and which his running mate voted for?

Forgive me, but I’ll take a man (or woman) who trips over his tongue but has sound policies over a Rhode Scholar, or anyone else, pushing failed policies any day.

The conventional wisdom about President Bush, as conventional wisdom so often is, is flat wrong. Bush joins Lincoln and Truman as one of the most unpopular presidents in history, he will also join them, for strikingly similar reasons, as one of the greatest — thanks in no small part to his equally loathed Vice-President, Dick Cheney.

Maybe maybe I did that on purpose!

… or, would you believe, I stutter when I type!!!

Well thank God for that.

The problem with the candidates is the environment they’re in. Their greatest challenge (esp for McCain & Palin) is to not say anything that the MSM can twist into a scandal. Likewise, Obama & Biden have to talk without saying anything that would give the game away.

We just don’t want to hear unpleasant truths. It’s much more comforting to think that some mean old banker pushed us into bad loans than to hear that it’s our fault for being greedy and sucking at arithmetic; for freely voting for politicians who promise something for nothing. That’s why politicians babble.

After 8 years of W’s orations, I would truly love a gifted orator in the Oval Office. Since none of the candidates are particularly gifted (not even Barry), we have to rely on judgement and character and, IMHO, McCain and Palin have the edge.

Adolph Hitler was a remarkably gifted orator (and, no, I am not drawing any comparisons with any of our candidates – I’m just saying).

So you think that if someone doesn’t mix up their words, they must be better and more knowledgeable than you? Wow.

It’s a decent start. I wouldn’t vote for me as president.

When I hear or read Palin’s efforts at answering questions, I am reminded of many of the “C” grade papers I got from my junior students when I was student teaching. I know she is more knowledgeable than those students, and I believe she has a better grasp of energy issues than Obama, but that’s about it.

I am also reminded of George Bush. He has a MBA, but right now, you would never know it. His speech, begging American people to approve of the $700 billion bailout, did not show he has mastery of economic principles, and that should be his greatest strength. He can’t seem talk a cat into a paper bag. I voted for Bush, and excused his interesting syntaxical errors in the same fashion that Palin supporters do hers. He had a lot more accumulative executive experience than Palin, and that didn’t turn out so well.

Sarah Palin has only been governor for less than two years, during relatively good economic times, in one of the least populous states of the union. She has not been tested, until now. She may, for all I know, be the next Harry Truman. But Truman, who was also criticized for his plain speaking manner had a lot more national political experience than both Palin and Obama put together. He was plain spoken, but at least he could put a sentence together.

I have to go do stuff now. I just have one question. How can you bag on Obama for his many verbal obfuscations, yet excuse Palin for the same thing?

[ILC:] People frequently mix up words when speaking off the cuff and under pressure. I know I do.

[sf:] I do too, and that’s kind of the point. I want to vote for someone who is better and more knowledgeable than me.

So you think that if someone doesn’t mix up their words, they must be better and more knowledgeable than you? Wow.

Guess who usually don’t mix up their words? Bill and Hillary Clinton. Unless you are about to go to prison, which I doubt, I would seriously question whether either of them is “better” than you. (And, if they are more knowledgeable in many political areas, well so what.)