I mean, I certainly don't have any gubernatorial experience.
I love Charles Krauthammer at the Washington Post. He is wonderful. I have been reading back articles and it is lovely how the language of his articles about Obama parallels many of the statements made at the convention. (Look for his name in the "home" section under opinions at washingtonpost.com. Try "The Audacity of Vanity" on for size.)
I disagree with him, however, (and my beloved George F. Will, also of the Post) when he says that by picking Palin, McCain has forfeited the opportunity to use the "my opponent is inexperienced" argument. I would like to note that I am no expert on this, and I am not saying that Sarah Palin is perfect and saintly and never to be doubted. I'm just saying that it seems like everyone, from NPR to the Post seems to be jumping on the "he might as well have picked a first grader" band wagon, and I haven't heard anybody mention the other side of the argument. And I feel like every argument has to have two sides, otherwise something shady is going on.
It seems to me that there is a BIG difference between voting for a PRESIDENTIAL candidate who is clearly severely under-qualified, and voting for a presidential candidate whose running mate has served as the chief executive of one of the biggest states in the country, but has limited federal experience. That difference is that in selecting Obama, people are risking a 100% chance that the President of the United States has no more experience than being a "community organizer" in Chicago and serving as a senator for two years, in which he has voted "present" in senate elections over 130 times.
In voting for McCain (who, I freely admit, was one of my last choices for candidacy) and Palin, people are risking the small chance that the future president (who, as evidenced by his healthy and energetic 92 year old mother, is of hearty stock) might in some freak event, keel over. Leaving in his stead a woman who at least has executive governing experience, which is more than Obama can boast (although as Mr. Krauthammer points out, boast he does.)
To me, the situation begs the question: what had Ronald Reagan done in 1980 that provided him with vast federal and foreign policy experience to earn him 489 electoral votes to the 49 earned by the incumbent president? He had been an actor, leader of the SAG, and a two-term Governor of California. His executive experience in SAG as well as his governorship during a very turbulent time in California (anyone remember the protests at Berkeley?) prepared him to make difficult decisions and wise choices as president. These wise choices included surrounding himself with experts and advisors who could provide any needed experience and information that he might lack. People knew him, and trusted him, and he fulfilled and surpassed expectations so strongly in his first term that the nation elected him to a second term with an unprecedented 525 electoral votes, carrying 49 of the 50 states in the country. Even Senator Obama testifies to the amazing example President Reagan presents for presidential hopefuls in a video viewable on youtube.
When Palin decided to run for Governor of Alaska, it was for the simple reason that as mayor of a small town in the state, she had been unable to get the self-serving state government to meet the basic needs of the every day people in her town, like paved roads. After her mayor-ship, she was appointed chairman of the Oil & Gas Commission, earning for the first time in her life, a six-figure salary. However, she was so appalled and discouraged by the corruption in the way the commission operated that she resigned in protest. The lawmakers in Alaska before Palin took over were so corrupt that they were proud of it, referring to themselves openly as the "Corrupt Bastards Club." They were also Republicans, as is, clearly, Mrs. Palin. Who better to clean up a mess made by Republicans than someone who has so thoroughly cleaned up the party in her own state that she has a near 80 % approval rating?
In her acceptance speech at the convention, she mentioned her son, who will soon be deployed to Iraq with the US Army. In a feature in the February 2008 issue of Vogue, she drew personal ties between this event and off-shore drilling in the US. Stating that people like her son were doing the most they could do to protect the country, she asked "Are we producing a domestic, secure form of energy instead of relying on foreign sources?" For the safety of our country, Palin noted, " We need to be doing more." Seems foolish for people who say that Republicans aren't interested in anything but oil.
Governor Palin has served as the executive leader of Alaska, one of our nations most naturally valuable states, for two years. She has made decisions about significant environmental and economic issues that affected city dwellers as well as some of our country's most rural populations. Only one percent of the land in Alaska is owned by individuals. The rest is owned by the Federal government, which may in part answer the questions regarding why large amounts of Federal money end up there. (This, however, is a point that no one seems to note when complaining about "earmarks" headed for the state.) This could also serve as evidence that Palin has some experience dealing with the feds.
Concurrently, and just as a side note, maybe I'm missing something here, but it seems like if it is no longer legitimate for Senator McCain to argue experience, the Obama campaign shouldn't really be able to either. I mean, they say people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
It seems clear that the chance of being governed by a completely untested, wholly inexperienced, and rhetorical president is so much exponentially higher under an Obama administration than a McCain/Palin administration that I'm a little surprised that no one seems willing to make the distinction. At least there is evidence that Palin knows how to make a decision when it counts. Can the senator from Illinois say that?
Perhaps he is banking on the comfort that his simply being "present" would provide.
I disagree with him, however, (and my beloved George F. Will, also of the Post) when he says that by picking Palin, McCain has forfeited the opportunity to use the "my opponent is inexperienced" argument. I would like to note that I am no expert on this, and I am not saying that Sarah Palin is perfect and saintly and never to be doubted. I'm just saying that it seems like everyone, from NPR to the Post seems to be jumping on the "he might as well have picked a first grader" band wagon, and I haven't heard anybody mention the other side of the argument. And I feel like every argument has to have two sides, otherwise something shady is going on.
It seems to me that there is a BIG difference between voting for a PRESIDENTIAL candidate who is clearly severely under-qualified, and voting for a presidential candidate whose running mate has served as the chief executive of one of the biggest states in the country, but has limited federal experience. That difference is that in selecting Obama, people are risking a 100% chance that the President of the United States has no more experience than being a "community organizer" in Chicago and serving as a senator for two years, in which he has voted "present" in senate elections over 130 times.
In voting for McCain (who, I freely admit, was one of my last choices for candidacy) and Palin, people are risking the small chance that the future president (who, as evidenced by his healthy and energetic 92 year old mother, is of hearty stock) might in some freak event, keel over. Leaving in his stead a woman who at least has executive governing experience, which is more than Obama can boast (although as Mr. Krauthammer points out, boast he does.)
To me, the situation begs the question: what had Ronald Reagan done in 1980 that provided him with vast federal and foreign policy experience to earn him 489 electoral votes to the 49 earned by the incumbent president? He had been an actor, leader of the SAG, and a two-term Governor of California. His executive experience in SAG as well as his governorship during a very turbulent time in California (anyone remember the protests at Berkeley?) prepared him to make difficult decisions and wise choices as president. These wise choices included surrounding himself with experts and advisors who could provide any needed experience and information that he might lack. People knew him, and trusted him, and he fulfilled and surpassed expectations so strongly in his first term that the nation elected him to a second term with an unprecedented 525 electoral votes, carrying 49 of the 50 states in the country. Even Senator Obama testifies to the amazing example President Reagan presents for presidential hopefuls in a video viewable on youtube.
When Palin decided to run for Governor of Alaska, it was for the simple reason that as mayor of a small town in the state, she had been unable to get the self-serving state government to meet the basic needs of the every day people in her town, like paved roads. After her mayor-ship, she was appointed chairman of the Oil & Gas Commission, earning for the first time in her life, a six-figure salary. However, she was so appalled and discouraged by the corruption in the way the commission operated that she resigned in protest. The lawmakers in Alaska before Palin took over were so corrupt that they were proud of it, referring to themselves openly as the "Corrupt Bastards Club." They were also Republicans, as is, clearly, Mrs. Palin. Who better to clean up a mess made by Republicans than someone who has so thoroughly cleaned up the party in her own state that she has a near 80 % approval rating?
In her acceptance speech at the convention, she mentioned her son, who will soon be deployed to Iraq with the US Army. In a feature in the February 2008 issue of Vogue, she drew personal ties between this event and off-shore drilling in the US. Stating that people like her son were doing the most they could do to protect the country, she asked "Are we producing a domestic, secure form of energy instead of relying on foreign sources?" For the safety of our country, Palin noted, " We need to be doing more." Seems foolish for people who say that Republicans aren't interested in anything but oil.
Governor Palin has served as the executive leader of Alaska, one of our nations most naturally valuable states, for two years. She has made decisions about significant environmental and economic issues that affected city dwellers as well as some of our country's most rural populations. Only one percent of the land in Alaska is owned by individuals. The rest is owned by the Federal government, which may in part answer the questions regarding why large amounts of Federal money end up there. (This, however, is a point that no one seems to note when complaining about "earmarks" headed for the state.) This could also serve as evidence that Palin has some experience dealing with the feds.
Concurrently, and just as a side note, maybe I'm missing something here, but it seems like if it is no longer legitimate for Senator McCain to argue experience, the Obama campaign shouldn't really be able to either. I mean, they say people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
It seems clear that the chance of being governed by a completely untested, wholly inexperienced, and rhetorical president is so much exponentially higher under an Obama administration than a McCain/Palin administration that I'm a little surprised that no one seems willing to make the distinction. At least there is evidence that Palin knows how to make a decision when it counts. Can the senator from Illinois say that?
Perhaps he is banking on the comfort that his simply being "present" would provide.