“Palin is an AWESOME conservative cheerleader but that’s the extent of it. Just because one doesn’t think of her as being qualified to be a presidential nominee, doesn’t make the person anti-Palin. I may not think she’ll be a good president but I will defend her and any attacks against her or her family coming from the left so I advise you to aim towards the proper target: THE LEFT and stop behaving irrationally over this.”
I agree, maybe we should consider a real conservative like Lindsey Graham. Then we won’t have to listen to the mainstream media attack our candidate.
Sarah Palin’s experience stacks up quite well historically, if anyone takes the time to compare it to previous Presidents.
Lincoln, Kennedy and Truman (aside from two months as FDR’s VP) also had no executive experience, elective or appointive, when they became President.
Woodrow Wilson’s only executive experience was two years as Governor of New Jersey, after which he became President.
Calvin Coolidge, in addition to being Harding’ VP for two years, was governor of Massachusetts for two years and mayor of a small town of 3000 (Northampton)for two years. (sound familiar?) In Reagan’s opinion, as well as Bob Novak’s, Coolidge was the best President of the 20th Century (until the Gipper, of course).
Other Presidents,(Madison, John Quincy Adams, Buchanan Hoover) only had executive experience as appointed heads of cabinet agencies.
Ford had no real executive experience; He was VP under Nixon for less than a year.
That is a list of 10 Presidents, including some pretty good ones who had less than, or equivalent to, Sarah Palin’s executive experience. And I didn’t even count the large number of Presidents (10) whose executive experience consisted solely of being generals in the army. (Only three of the ten were Commanders in Chief, which would at least somewhat approximate the Presidency).