Posted on 02/17/2010 8:27:21 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
The Republican presidential nominee, an Arizona senator, was a maverick, which was part of his charm. He spoke and acted impulsively, which was part of his problem. Voters thought his entertaining dimensions might be incompatible with presidential responsibilities. For example, he selected a running mate most Americans had never heard of and who had negligible experience pertinent to the presidency. This was 1964.
Barry Goldwater, whose seat John McCain occupies, chose to run with Bill Miller, a congressman from Lockport, N.Y., near Buffalo. Miller, Goldwater cheerfully explained, annoyed Lyndon Johnson. After the Goldwater-Miller ticket lost 44 states, Miller retired to Lockport, where he practiced law and lived in dignified anonymity until his death in 1983. Although he had served as an assistant prosecutor of Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg and spent seven terms in Congress, no one suggested he should be considered for the 1968 Republican presidential nomination.
Yet Sarah Palin, who with 17 months remaining in her single term as Alaska's governor quit the only serious office she has ever held, is obsessively discussed as a possible candidate in 2012. Why? She is not going to be president and will not be the Republican nominee unless the party wants to lose at least 44 states.
Conservatives, who rightly respect markets as generally reliable gauges of consumer preferences, should notice that the political market is speaking clearly: The more attention Palin receives, the fewer Americans consider her presidential timber. The latest Post-ABC News poll shows that 71 percent of Americans -- including 52 percent of Republicans -- think she is not qualified to be president.(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Will would prefer a Republican version of John Edwards.
***
Enter Mitt Romney
Naaaah.
Your statement proves exactly what is wrong with you right there.
After being governed for decades by super corrupt, sleazy Ivy League educated vermin with absolutely no morals, who have run this country into crippling debts of a stunning $13 Trillion and placed us in hock to China,, it is essential that we have a president that is God fearing, and is highly principled. It's irrelevant how much league eduction you have, if you are a liar, a thief, and a left wing radical, you are only going to do serious damage to this country.
Prophecy is for suckers, so that counts against her in my book. I haven't heard her speak on this subject, but if I have to hear it from her I assure you that my eye-rolling will be at maximum capacity.
Aren't you the guy that once told me on a CREvo thread that Geocentrism is still an important part of modern science? Apologies if I'm mixing you up with someone else, but your ludicrous statement about Biblical prophecy being an important component of Presidential leadership brought it to mind.
You think this bad, wait for the long knives, of Bennett, Savage, and then, Noonan and Brooks again when she really begins to gain traction....
From Merriam-Webster.
Main Entry: 1pop·u·list
Pronunciation: \ˈpä-pyə-list\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin populus the people
Date: 1892
1 : a member of a political party claiming to represent the common people; especially often capitalized : a member of a United States political party formed in 1891 primarily to represent agrarian interests and to advocate the free coinage of silver and government control of monopolies.
Chortle! Here we have a professional Palin-basher, whining that his idiotic attacks are being taken apart.
What is tiresome here, is the constant rubbish we keep getting from the anti-Palan bots of “but, but, but she is not qualified”.
Of course she is qualified. She has been the governor of a state for crying out loud.
” Using this logic, why don't we just find the longest serving mayor or governor in the country and appoint him/her President, since they're obviously the “most qualified”.”
That's what elections are there for.
BTW, its not how many years one has served in governor. It's what you did while you were Governor, and how high your approval ratings were while you were Governor.
At the end of the day, a governor is graded by the people that the governor governs, who give the Governor a a high or a low approval rating. Going by that metric, Sarah Palin had the highest grade amongst all governors in the entire country.
By comparison, go ask 0bama what his ratings are, after just one year in office. CNN had a poll yesterday which had 52% of Americans saying they would NOT vote for 0bama against if the elections were held today. That is a big fail right there.
I didn't say she was "not qualified", but the argument being floated around here that she has expansive experience outside of being mayor of a town with 5,000 and 24 months as Governor of a small state isn't compelling. Quit acting like she has a huge amount of political experience and use her inexperience as a plus. Saying things like that when she met with a couple of Russian leaders she gained massive "foreign policy experience" is just going to make people laugh.
I don't care about resumes, but I also don't buy into BS from people caught up in some celebrity excitement.
Palin may have some merits as a Presidential candidate, I don't know. But her relatively brief career governing small constituencies is not one of them. You're going to need something else.
Given that we have 30,000 ciies in this country, that means Alaska had a bigger population than 95% of cities in his country and is of course VASTLY bigger any city on on the planet, and vastly bigger than any state in this country, .
“Look, she served as mayor of a city that is smaller than the high school I went to, and then served as Governor of a small state for two years”
Governor of by far the biggest state in the country, with huge oil reserves and vast natural resources. How much oil reserves did your dingy school have, and how many thousands of miles of oil pipelines did you have in that school of yours?
Did I say she had approval ratings of over 90%, the best in the country at the time
2 years uh?
0bama had served 2 years in the US Senate and achieved nothing there, before he started running for president and he still won with 53% of the popular vote.
The biggest state in the country to you, with vast natural resources that she managed very well during her stewardship.
That argument is a heck of a lot more compelling than a community organizer from Chicago, and 2 years in the US Senate.
Given that 0bama sits on the White House, its really funny when the Palin-bashers keep coming up with this ridiculous argument.
If you think understanding Bible prophecy id ludicrous, you are a perfect example of why all of the founders of this nation stated that only a Christian could be qualified to hold office, and why our constitution was only suited to the governance of a Christian nation.
But I’m guessing that you slept through that part of American History.
The Gum runners running their gums.
Yeah, and most of it is federal land. I don't think governing Alaska is a necessarily difficult or challenging job. Her political maneuvering in the primaries and some of the internal battles she fought were interesting, but I'm not buying the fact that her record represents veritable political experience. Please stop trying to sell it, because people aren't buying it, regardless of whatever mathematical exercises you want to play.
And quit contrasting her to Obama; I don't think Obama is qualified either, but it has nothing to do with his 5 minute resume, it has to do with his corrupt and statist ideas.
I'd vote for someone with NO political experience if I were convinced they had a proper understanding of the Constitution and role of government, had shown competent and consistent leadership qualities in competitive entities over a long period of time, and could run a good campaign and sell their ideas. At this time its NOT her.
I just listened to Palin's Tea Party Convention speech and Reagan's 1964 keynote speech, and I see no comparison whatsoever. I'm amazed that people are drawing a parallel.
She's an inch wide and an inch deep in my opinion.
No, but I spent a lot of time studying Article VI, Section 3 of the Constitution, which renders your first statement false.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
You simply misunderstand what they meant by “religious test.”
They were all distrustful of each other’s Denomination; IOW the Presbyterians didn’t want the Methosists to set up a national church, and vice-versa, so they did all they could to prevent a national denomination from being selected.
Study history (have you EVER picked up a history book on the period?). The income tax was pushed by populists in the late 19th and early 20th century as a way of taxing the so called “elites” in the north as a way of redistributing wealth to the agrarian states.
That still leaves the Governor with far more land and resources to manage than any other state in the country, certainly vastly more than your high school that you think is harder to manage than a whole state.
“I don't think governing Alaska is a necessarily difficult or challenging job”
Chortle.
How about, I think that is the most stupid statement on this thread.....and there have been plenty of them.
“Her political maneuvering in the primaries and some of the internal battles she fought were interesting, but I'm not buying the fact that her record represents veritable political experience”
Have you (or 0bama o Biden for that matter) even run a village in your entire life?
Run for and won public office in an executive position?
Run for, and actually won elections as the governor of the biggest state in the entire country, in the face of strong and determined opposition from your own party?
Turned round and sent members of your own party to jail for corruption after taking office
Achieved approval ratings of over 90% while you were governor?
Now why don't you get back to me when you have achieved even ONE TENTH of that will ya?
Perhaps you missed the fact that Reagan's speech failed to bring about Goldwater's election. IOW, it was a failure at its intended purpose.
Yes, it electrified you and me, but it did zilch for most of the morons that went to the polls. Your speech comparison was truly a misdirection.
Thus, Barack Obama is more of a Populist than Ronald Reagan ever was.
Absolutely. The problem is (and this works in our favor), he can’t get the rhetoric down pat.
They could have written in the requirement of an affirmation of God, like the one in the Texas Constitution, or an affirmation of the Christian God, if they believed as you claim.
One quote from John Adams doesn't change what's in the fine print of the Constitution. It says NO RELIGIOUS TEST, not no Christian denominational test. This type of semantic gymnastics reminds me of the Brady Campaign bunch, lamenting that the 2nd Amendment is written in plain English.
The Constitution means what it says, and that's what is relavent to governance, not what one Founder might have said in one letter in one private correspondence to some officers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.