I admit that I think Reagan did a good job. And I think Clinton is a really smart guy. But if you look at the bozoes who have occuppied the office, then how hard can it be to be qualified, or even qulified.
She is aggressive, bright (a pleasant change), and honest (another novelty when looking at the last 40 years). So, yeah, she's qulified, presuming she picks the right team.
Reagan had a good team. Bush II didn't. We should ask candidates to name their Cabinets before we vote.
I think that having to name your cabinet prior to election is a BRILLIANT suggestion (my psychology classes have taught me to always give the positive feedback first...)
You have obvioulsy had a different exposure to Mrs. Sarah than I, myself, have. Her performance at the RNC was impressive, yes…she is a fine orator who read the teleprompter very adeptly...but the impression that is stuck in my mind is the CG interview...and the steps her party has taken, in the wake of that interview, to shield her from any engagement in which she might/would be unscripted.
What does it say when you don’t trust your VP candidate to speak?
Let us use the same standard then for Joe Biden. He keeps making gaffes and making gaffes and telling lies. Remember all of the plagarism earlier in his career. He cannot be trusted because he doesn't even know when he is telling us the truth. The number of lies that Barry has told is just as impressive. He even lied during the debate about his father. Why doesn't the main stream media point this out? You point to the CG interview, please compare and contrast the questions he gave Sarah Palin to the ones he asked Barry during their lovefest earlier. The media is in the bag for Barry!
No one commented on the qualifications of the "O"! I think it is blatantly ridiculous that her qualification are being challenged when he, with no executive experience, one term in national office is judged to be qualified to lead the ticket. One must argue that he is a more competent person, but this can only be based on his oratory not his past actions of which there are none. A crisis exists in the economy; where is he, what has he done? Hair, how can you question her qualifications when you have given him such a pass? How can you question her interview skills when his interviews consist of the questioners talking about how attracted she is to him? Heavens
I wouldn't get all caught up in the VP position. Look at the candidates advisors, these are his future cabinet members who will have much more influence on his platform than any VP.
For better or worse, Obama was chosen by the people (yes, I am willing to concede that democrats are people too) after entering and surviving the crucible of a presidential nominating process. Palin was picked by one man; thus, I think the question is whether the man who chose her is qualified to be President.
By picking Palin out of obscurity and mediocrity, McCain demonstrated both a lack of judgment and the willingness to put his election above the interest of the nation. He may have thought that his desperation Hail Mary pass was good for his campaign (probably not in hindsight), but upon what objective criteria can one claim that it was good for the country?
I have not, yet said anything about her (OR his) qualifications...
I simply observed that you can infer much from the appearance that you don't trust your candidate to speak.
I freely admit that I had never heard of Sarah Palin before she was introduced as McCain's running mate. My further exposure to Sarah Palin is extremely limited, I believe, by design. I am entitled to my first impression/gut reaction and I can't/will not change that opinion until I am given substance upon which to do so. I am very much looking forward to tomorrow's debate.
But Tom is right on - it will ultimately prove out not be her failing...it will be McCain's.
The moderator for tomorrow's debate between Sarah Palin and that other guy will be Gwen Ifill, hostess of PBS's "Washington Week in Review." Fox News reports that "questions are being raised" about Ifill's objectivity "after news surfaced that she is releasing a new book promoting Barack Obama and other black politicians who have benefited from the civil rights struggle."
Among Ifill's critics are Michelle Malkin, a Fox News political analyst, who writes on National Review Online that Ifill is "so far in the tank for the Democratic presidential candidate, her oxygen delivery line is running out," and Fox hostess Greta Van Susteren, who writes on her GretaWire blog (quoting verbatim):
The McCain campaign did NOT know about Gwen Ifill's book (I think I told them when I made my efforts--emails about midnight--to find out!) I am stunned….the campaign (actually both) should have been told before the campaign agreed to have her moderate. It simply is not fair--in law, this would create a mistrial.A little perspective is in order, however. The analogy between a debate moderator and a judge is overwrought. Unlike a judge, a moderator decides nothing beyond what questions to ask and how to keep the debate flowing. To put it another way, voters, unlike jurors, can make their decision on whatever basis they choose. They are not subject to instructions from the bench.
In addition, from the description on the Random House Web site, Ifill's book is not "about"
The Gwen issue is just too, too funny! Can you imagine if the moderator had written a book the financial success of which depended on McCain winning. The howls would be deafening!!!
If we were to take McCain at his word,he picked Palin because of her courage. No one has questioned her story line: she has run for each and every office because she sought to change things, and she has done so. That includes booting out the bastards in her OWN PARTY. In politics that is nothing if not courageous.
Quite honestly, what can anyone name that Obama has accomplished that has made a difference anywhere at any time. Please, name on thing. The one non-proliferation thing was like me offering an after dinner toast to our troops in the field. EVERYONE AGREES. Obama has not one shred of evidence of courage under fire.
She is unqualified. Did you hear how Palin called Obama the first mainstream African American clean and articulate candidate? What a racist outrageous statement! And then how she told that guy in the wheel chair to stand up the other day at a rally? And said how she is the first person in her family to go to college after being raised in a coal mining family, even though neither is true?
.... Can you imagine Katie Couric asking Joe Biden what newspapers he reads?
I agree with Kelly that the McCain strategy of limiting her interviews is ridiculous. And I agree that reflects badly on McCain.
Stakes are raised very high for VP debate now. She can either be a game changer or a game ender with her performance tomorrow.
Liberals Sneer, Americans Cheer BY MICHELLE EASTON
Posted 10/1/2008
Regardless of how well Sarah Palin does in Thursday's debate, conservatives would be astounded if the major media acknowledged her success.
For the most part, the media have decided the appropriate response to the governor is to sneer, and sneering at great conservative leaders, from Ronald Reagan to Rush Limbaugh, has been a liberal pastime for decades.
What makes Gov. Palin unique from the other three candidates in this race is she seems so normal. She worked her way through college, married a good local guy, stayed home with her children for several years and has an impressive professional resume as well.
Millions of Americans never really related to Hillary Clinton on a personal level, what with her Wellesley and Yale education and lobbying/legal work.
Then there was her sticking with Bill while he womanized. It made women wrinkle their brows and question her judgment, even as they noted her hard work to promote liberal ideas.
Katie Couric is a master sneerer. She's never done a fair interview with a conservative woman — ever. It's hard to imagine why campaign strategists waste Palin's time preparing for and sitting through Couric's brand of liberal "gotcha" journalism.
Couric's half-lidded eyes and unbearable condescension toward a woman whose achievements, personal and professional, are so superior to her own were excruciating to watch. But we could have predicted Couric's disparaging questions and snide looks before the interview aired.
Viewership of Couric's "CBS Evening News" show has been in the tank ever since she took over. Letting her interview Palin elevated attention for Couric in a way she couldn't do on her own.
Palin should stop wasting time on mainline media interviews that are predisposed to be critical. She should spend her time addressing the crowds of tens of thousands who want to see her whenever they can.
If press interviews are granted, the criterion should be: "Has the interviewer ever done a fair interview with a conservative woman?" That would save the governor a lot of energy and let her share her message with the millions of Americans hungry to hear more from her.
Liberals are extraordinarily chagrined that the first woman in 24 years to be on a national ticket isn't Hillary, but a conservative. And while they critique and disrespect Palin with gusto, they underestimate the backlash of support they've created for her, even from many Americans who don't think of themselves as conservatives.
Grandmother of the radical feminist movement Gloria Steinem (famous for saying "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle") went after Sarah by saying, "This isn't the first time a boss has picked an unqualified woman just because she agrees with him and opposes everything most other women want and need."
This was an insult to the millions of women who admire both Palin and McCain. These admirers say, "Yes, McCain's years of experience mean he is old enough to be her father, and so what? She has been elected a mayor and governor, and he hasn't."
Millions of Americans had only marginal interest in this year's campaign until Palin joined the ticket.
Make no mistake: The left-wing criticism of Sarah Palin is not an honest look at her readiness, but a criticism of her core values and her Reaganesque philosophical conservatism. For liberals, a movement conservative will never be ready.
Palin's answer to those who question her readiness should be: "I don't know every issue. And I didn't know every issue when I became governor of Alaska. But 80% of the people of the state approve of my work."
I had to roll my eyes at an offer in the latest Virginia NOW newsletter. It read: "Great Gift Idea!! The Margaret doll and T-shirt. Margaret, Dennis the Menace's nemesis, wears a T-shirt that says: 'Someday a woman will be president.' "
You'd think a national organization claiming to represent women would be offering a Sarah Palin doll sporting a T-shirt saying, "Someday a woman will be president."
Like all the sneering critics in the national media, NOW sneers at Palin because it gets behind only liberal, not conservative, women.
Easton is on leave of absence as president of the Herndon, Va.-based Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute, which promotes conservative women.
14 comments:
Should we lose faith in our fair moderator because he can't spell QUALIFIED?
No, there are many better reasons to lose faith in him.
Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush.
I admit that I think Reagan did a good job. And I think Clinton is a really smart guy. But if you look at the bozoes who have occuppied the office, then how hard can it be to be qualified, or even qulified.
She is aggressive, bright (a pleasant change), and honest (another novelty when looking at the last 40 years). So, yeah, she's qulified, presuming she picks the right team.
Reagan had a good team. Bush II didn't. We should ask candidates to name their Cabinets before we vote.
I think that having to name your cabinet prior to election is a BRILLIANT suggestion (my psychology classes have taught me to always give the positive feedback first...)
You have obvioulsy had a different exposure to Mrs. Sarah than I, myself, have. Her performance at the RNC was impressive, yes…she is a fine orator who read the teleprompter very adeptly...but the impression that is stuck in my mind is the CG interview...and the steps her party has taken, in the wake of that interview, to shield her from any engagement in which she might/would be unscripted.
What does it say when you don’t trust your VP candidate to speak?
Geez, do you want provocative questions or accurate spelling? Both, is of course too much to demand.
Kelly,
Let us use the same standard then for Joe Biden. He keeps making gaffes and making gaffes and telling lies. Remember all of the plagarism earlier in his career. He cannot be trusted because he doesn't even know when he is telling us the truth. The number of lies that Barry has told is just as impressive. He even lied during the debate about his father. Why doesn't the main stream media point this out? You point to the CG interview, please compare and contrast the questions he gave Sarah Palin to the ones he asked Barry during their lovefest earlier. The media is in the bag for Barry!
No one commented on the qualifications of the "O"! I think it is blatantly ridiculous that her qualification are being challenged when he, with no executive experience, one term in national office is judged to be qualified to lead the ticket. One must argue that he is a more competent person, but this can only be based on his oratory not his past actions of which there are none. A crisis exists in the economy; where is he, what has he done? Hair, how can you question her qualifications when you have given him such a pass? How can you question her interview skills when his interviews consist of the questioners talking about how attracted she is to him? Heavens
I wouldn't get all caught up in the VP position. Look at the candidates advisors, these are his future cabinet members who will have much more influence on his platform than any VP.
For better or worse, Obama was chosen by the people (yes, I am willing to concede that democrats are people too) after entering and surviving the crucible of a presidential nominating process. Palin was picked by one man; thus, I think the question is whether the man who chose her is qualified to be President.
By picking Palin out of obscurity and mediocrity, McCain demonstrated both a lack of judgment and the willingness to put his election above the interest of the nation. He may have thought that his desperation Hail Mary pass was good for his campaign (probably not in hindsight), but upon what objective criteria can one claim that it was good for the country?
I have not, yet said anything about her (OR his) qualifications...
I simply observed that you can infer much from the appearance that you don't trust your candidate to speak.
I freely admit that I had never heard of Sarah Palin before she was introduced as McCain's running mate. My further exposure to Sarah Palin is extremely limited, I believe, by design. I am entitled to my first impression/gut reaction and I can't/will not change that opinion until I am given substance upon which to do so. I am very much looking forward to tomorrow's debate.
But Tom is right on - it will ultimately prove out not be her failing...it will be McCain's.
From the WSJ, we will see if she can be fair.
The moderator for tomorrow's debate between Sarah Palin and that other guy will be Gwen Ifill, hostess of PBS's "Washington Week in Review." Fox News reports that "questions are being raised" about Ifill's objectivity "after news surfaced that she is releasing a new book promoting Barack Obama and other black politicians who have benefited from the civil rights struggle."
Among Ifill's critics are Michelle Malkin, a Fox News political analyst, who writes on National Review Online that Ifill is "so far in the tank for the Democratic presidential candidate, her oxygen delivery line is running out," and Fox hostess Greta Van Susteren, who writes on her GretaWire blog (quoting verbatim):
The McCain campaign did NOT know about Gwen Ifill's book (I think I told them when I made my efforts--emails about midnight--to find out!) I am stunned….the campaign (actually both) should have been told before the campaign agreed to have her moderate. It simply is not fair--in law, this would create a mistrial.A little perspective is in order, however. The analogy between a debate moderator and a judge is overwrought. Unlike a judge, a moderator decides nothing beyond what questions to ask and how to keep the debate flowing. To put it another way, voters, unlike jurors, can make their decision on whatever basis they choose. They are not subject to instructions from the bench.
In addition, from the description on the Random House Web site, Ifill's book is not "about"
The Gwen issue is just too, too funny! Can you imagine if the moderator had written a book the financial success of which depended on McCain winning. The howls would be deafening!!!
If we were to take McCain at his word,he picked Palin because of her courage. No one has questioned her story line: she has run for each and every office because she sought to change things, and she has done so. That includes booting out the bastards in her OWN PARTY. In politics that is nothing if not courageous.
Quite honestly, what can anyone name that Obama has accomplished that has made a difference anywhere at any time. Please, name on thing. The one non-proliferation thing was like me offering an after dinner toast to our troops in the field. EVERYONE AGREES. Obama has not one shred of evidence of courage under fire.
She is unqualified. Did you hear how Palin called Obama the first mainstream African American clean and articulate candidate? What a racist outrageous statement! And then how she told that guy in the wheel chair to stand up the other day at a rally? And said how she is the first person in her family to go to college after being raised in a coal mining family, even though neither is true?
.... Can you imagine Katie Couric asking Joe Biden what newspapers he reads?
I agree with Kelly that the McCain strategy of limiting her interviews is ridiculous. And I agree that reflects badly on McCain.
Stakes are raised very high for VP debate now. She can either be a game changer or a game ender with her performance tomorrow.
Liberals Sneer, Americans Cheer
BY MICHELLE EASTON
Posted 10/1/2008
Regardless of how well Sarah Palin does in Thursday's debate, conservatives would be astounded if the major media acknowledged her success.
For the most part, the media have decided the appropriate response to the governor is to sneer, and sneering at great conservative leaders, from Ronald Reagan to Rush Limbaugh, has been a liberal pastime for decades.
What makes Gov. Palin unique from the other three candidates in this race is she seems so normal. She worked her way through college, married a good local guy, stayed home with her children for several years and has an impressive professional resume as well.
Millions of Americans never really related to Hillary Clinton on a personal level, what with her Wellesley and Yale education and lobbying/legal work.
Then there was her sticking with Bill while he womanized. It made women wrinkle their brows and question her judgment, even as they noted her hard work to promote liberal ideas.
Katie Couric is a master sneerer. She's never done a fair interview with a conservative woman — ever. It's hard to imagine why campaign strategists waste Palin's time preparing for and sitting through Couric's brand of liberal "gotcha" journalism.
Couric's half-lidded eyes and unbearable condescension toward a woman whose achievements, personal and professional, are so superior to her own were excruciating to watch. But we could have predicted Couric's disparaging questions and snide looks before the interview aired.
Viewership of Couric's "CBS Evening News" show has been in the tank ever since she took over. Letting her interview Palin elevated attention for Couric in a way she couldn't do on her own.
Palin should stop wasting time on mainline media interviews that are predisposed to be critical. She should spend her time addressing the crowds of tens of thousands who want to see her whenever they can.
If press interviews are granted, the criterion should be: "Has the interviewer ever done a fair interview with a conservative woman?" That would save the governor a lot of energy and let her share her message with the millions of Americans hungry to hear more from her.
Liberals are extraordinarily chagrined that the first woman in 24 years to be on a national ticket isn't Hillary, but a conservative. And while they critique and disrespect Palin with gusto, they underestimate the backlash of support they've created for her, even from many Americans who don't think of themselves as conservatives.
Grandmother of the radical feminist movement Gloria Steinem (famous for saying "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle") went after Sarah by saying, "This isn't the first time a boss has picked an unqualified woman just because she agrees with him and opposes everything most other women want and need."
This was an insult to the millions of women who admire both Palin and McCain. These admirers say, "Yes, McCain's years of experience mean he is old enough to be her father, and so what? She has been elected a mayor and governor, and he hasn't."
Millions of Americans had only marginal interest in this year's campaign until Palin joined the ticket.
Make no mistake: The left-wing criticism of Sarah Palin is not an honest look at her readiness, but a criticism of her core values and her Reaganesque philosophical conservatism. For liberals, a movement conservative will never be ready.
Palin's answer to those who question her readiness should be: "I don't know every issue. And I didn't know every issue when I became governor of Alaska. But 80% of the people of the state approve of my work."
I had to roll my eyes at an offer in the latest Virginia NOW newsletter. It read: "Great Gift Idea!! The Margaret doll and T-shirt. Margaret, Dennis the Menace's nemesis, wears a T-shirt that says: 'Someday a woman will be president.' "
You'd think a national organization claiming to represent women would be offering a Sarah Palin doll sporting a T-shirt saying, "Someday a woman will be president."
Like all the sneering critics in the national media, NOW sneers at Palin because it gets behind only liberal, not conservative, women.
Easton is on leave of absence as president of the Herndon, Va.-based Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute, which promotes conservative women.
Post a Comment