About Experience, Comparing Palin to Obama
I have a few questions for you Democrats, the ones who wouldn’t know intellectual honesty if it bit you in the ass.
First off, when did experience become such an important issue? Was it Friday? Yes, I think it was. Because before then, you went out of your way to convince everybody that experience didn’t matter.
Secondly, do you people really think that a community organizer (whatever the hell that is) that served a while in the Illinois state legislature, before serving three and a half years in the US Senate has more executive experience than a sitting governor? Are you people stupid or something? Good grief! Obama does not have one single day of executive experience. Not a single day. Yet you attack Governor Palin as “inexperienced”. Are you too stupid to see that the McCain camp baited you into this discussion?
Thirdly, what happened to the politics of change? It seems like your Democratic ticket is nothing but the same old, same old. At the top of your ticket you have a guy that came up through the ranks of Chicago machine politics, by hanging out and aligning himself with some of the most unsavory characters. He gets the nomination, and who does he nominate, but a member of the Washington establishment? Guess which one of the four candidates is not a part of that Beltway septic tank?
Why do you all have such low regard for average Americans from average places like Small Town, Alaska? You all want to convince us that you are just like us, but when one of us, you know somebody that didn’t get to go to Harvard or Yale, somebody that has at one time, actually had to work for a living, gets the nomination, you make fun of them and call their town Hooterville.
One last thing, where do you get these wacko stereotypes of cultural conservatives? Where did they originate? GoldnI, get out and meet some of these people that you loathe. They are nothing like the image you have in your head, and God knows how that image got there. Teenage pregnancy happens all of time in small towns and small town churches. These young women are never shamed, but loved. Bristol’s pregnancy is no big deal to us. Not at all. I am baffled as to why it is such a big deal to you all. You all say it is bad to stereotype and that bigotry is wrong, but nobody stereotypes and nobody is as bigoted as you all are. Of course it is okay to be bigoted against average white people. They deserve it. Right?
I just don’t get you folks. Never have. You set up the goal posts. The game changes. You move the goal posts. The only thing that really drives you all is hatred and a desire to gain power. That’s it, and that’s sad.
UPDATE: Nathan Moore also believes the Obama-ites were baited into a discussion on experience.
Where did I get these ideas in my head Glen? In Tennessee. Don’t pretend that had it been Chelsea Clinton who got pregnant at 17 that you or any of your conservative friends would have been calling on us to love her or forgive her. No, it would have been all screaming about how she’s such a horrible example to all the young girls for having premarital sex. She would have been publicly shamed and you know it damn well.
You also don’t address my main point, which was “Well, she had a fortunate situation to have such a supportive family, what about those that don’t? What is anyone doing to help them?” The answer is, not a whole lot. That’s the central hypocrisy here.
I’m all for not judging people based on stuff like this. But I’m also for calling out bullshit, and I see plenty of it here.
Where in the world do you get this stuff? I live in Tennessee, down the road from you out here in Kingston Springs. I grew up in rural Alabama. I know these people and I know that your statement is absolutely untrue. Nobody attacks girls for having unmarried sex. I have never in my life heard that. My dad was a rural Baptist deacon. My sister was pregnant at 16. She’s 43 now and an evangelical mother of five. Your stereotype is so damn wrong. We don’t live in a cocoon believing that girls don’t have sex. Do you actually believe that? Your prejudice and stereotyping is downright amazing. A Chelsea pregnancy would have rallied the public around Clinton, not turned it against Chelsea. What the hell made you so cynical. I know you have had absolutely no experience with these regular Americans that you loathe. You couldn’t have.
What do you want them to do? Do a favor for me GoldnI. Go to Two Rivers Baptist Church, Brentwood Baptist Church, or any other mega-church. Tell the pastoral counselor that you are pregnant and a teenager, that is scared and doesn’t have any money or support from the father. See what happens. Even tell them that you are Jewish (btw, Jerry Sutton’s wife is Jewish) and not a Christian, and don’t want to be. Try this experiment. See how much love you get. I guran-damn-tee you that you will get something totally different than your stereotype. You might get financial help. You might even get a roof over your head. Such cynicism. No wonder you hate this country. You don’t even know it.
A Chelsea pregnancy would have rallied the public around Clinton, not turned it against Chelsea.
Not quite. It would have been touted as further proof that the entire Clinton family is evil and morally bankrupt. There would have been no forgiveness there, for the “spawn of Hillary and Janet Reno”. You call me a partisan, but don’t pretend that you’re any better than me in that regard.
And as for your experiment? “I might” get that, but if not, then what? Not every church has the resources of a Two Rivers or Brentwood Baptist. And how long would that help last? I’m sure the individual people there are great. But society as a whole is not as helpful, telling young mothers that they should stay home with their children yet doing nothing to make that easier.
I don’t hate America. I just don’t have a reason to not be at least a little cynical about this.
I could accuse you right back of hating America, a country to me where people aren’t afraid to go outside of their comfort zone and expand their horizons, one that’s not stuck in a 1950s ideal that only existed on TV.
But I don’t like to accuse people of hating America. I’ve always thought that’s a rather cheap arguing tactic.
Outside of their comfort zone? Heh, how many Dead shows have you been to my liberal friend?
I don’t know who is telling mothers to stay home with their children. If they are, the women aren’t listening. Maybe we aren’t stuck in the fifties. Maybe it’s your perception that is stuck in the fifties.
Answering only for myself, the problem with McCain picking Palin is that it undercuts his own attacks that say experience is so critically important for someone who’s going to be president (or one heartbeat away from president). And I don’t buy the dodge about executive experience being what’s important, because while it’s true that Palin has more executive experience than Obama, it’s also true that she has more executive experience than McCain.
I’ve always said that I value judgment over experience (after all, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et. al. had plenty of the latter and precious little of the former), so as far as I’m concerned, the only reason Palin’s relative lack of experience is an issue is because it belies McCain’s “experience is what really matters” shtick. At its core, it’s not experience that is the issue at all, but rather hypocrisy.
There are plenty of policy reasons to oppose Palin that have nothing whatsoever to do with her family issues, “experience,” or any of that crap.
I agree. She is the most qualified of the four candidates on the two major tickets.
Well, only if one things that “time on the job” is the primary thing that makes one “qualified.” Who’da thunk you and the unions would have that in common?
After all, Palin is the union candidate now.
After all, Palin is the union candidate now.
The fact that it’s great for her husband to be a union member and not-so-great that anyone else wants to join one is a perfectly Republican idea.
I bet the ticket gets zero union endorsements, as usual.
.
Intellectual dishonesty. Yeah. Mischief. Of course.
Secondly, do you people really think that a community organizer (whatever the hell that is) that served a while in the Illinois state legislature, before serving three and a half years in the US Senate has more executive experience than a sitting governor?
I keep hearing this brought up about community organizer. Who said that was supposed to have anything to do with preparation for an excecutive position, like President of the United States? It wasn’t Obama, or anyone supporting him. All they ever said was that it is evidence of his commitment to helping those in need, his decision to return to and assist members of the community, instead seeking and securing some sort of high paying position in a law firm (something easy to do given his performance in law school). Nothing more. Nothing less. I guess maybe it was Giuliani at the Republican convention. He’s an expert at erecting straw men to knock down.
Anyway, the answer regarding community organizer is, “No, I/we don’t believe that has anything to do with experience to be President. We do see it as evidence of committment and CORE values (a favorite Republican term), one’s we think are very important in a Commander in Chief.”
Oh, and as for what a community organizer is, that’s not really a brain twister. If a person doesn’t know, that says more about the person (his, or her lamentable ignorance) than about what a community organizer is.