Experience

“Well, my understanding is that Governor Palin’s town of Wasilla has, I think, 50 employees. We’ve got 2,500 in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe $12 million a year. You know, we have a budget of about three times that just for the month. So I think that our ability to manage large systems and to execute I think has been made clear over the last couple of years.”


Well apparently Barack Obama is more ignorant and condescending than I ever thought. This recent statement by him leaves me at a loss to explain how he can claim to be knowledgeable, experienced, and whatever else if he hasn't even realized that Sarah Palin is currently the governor of Alaska and has been for just short of 2 whole years. The budget of Alaska being something on the order of $10 billion and having something on the order of 25,000 employees sounds like she's got all the experience she needs. Also I'm pretty sure that even though the Alaska National Guard isn't a federal thing, it sure as hell counts toward command experience, which is a necessary component of executive experience. Has Obama been in charge of any military commands? Has his campaign manager?

I find it absolutely laughable that Obama is claiming that running for president qualifies you to be president because of the executive experience it gives you while campaigning to be president. Uh.... my head is spinning from the circular logic here. Besides, it's pretty well known that the candidates don't handle the day to day management of everything that goes on in the campaign. That's why they hire campaign managers to do it all for them. I wonder how his campaign manager truly feels about Obama taking credit for all the work he does. Probably a bit upset about it, I know I would be. Even though we shouldn't expect him to publicly say so.

Oh, and once again, is Obama running against Palin? I sort of thought he was running against McCain.....
.........................
RIP United States of America

July 1776 - November 2012.

       
« So You Want to be Vice President?
Nationalization »

Posted on Sep 6, 2008 12:23 pm by Samson in: | 35 comment(s) [Closed]
Comments
If the Obamamessiah says he has more experience than Gov Palin, then he has more experience. The Obamamessiah has spoken!! All hail the Obamamessiah!!

       
Heh. Seriously, couldn't they have picked a cooler word to use as a bash? Like The Obamassiah? It has a cooler ring to it than "The Obama Messiah" I think. Anyway, the media is quickly finding out that trashing Palin is backfiring in their faces. And I for one think it's a good thing that's happening. The folks are finally waking up to realize Yellow Journalism is back. Don't like a candidate? Attack her family Inquirer style. Don't agree on her issues? Dis her for daring to think of having a career while raising a baby. We'll ignore the last 30 years where the left has been promoting feminism and women in the work force and all that and still being able to raise families. I guess you can only do that if you're a left wing liberal who agrees with them.

They're afraid of Palin. They're afraid of her because she's about to accomplish everything they've been promoting for 30 years about equal rights, equal pay, equal ability, and breaking the glass ceiling. And she's a Republican.

       
I like Gov. Palin. See her shooting that M-16? She didn't even blink. The MSM is so in the Tank for Obama that they are afraid that Gov. Palin will make it a race now.

       
The only thing Obama has ever run is his mouth.

       
I'm happy to see that we're sticking to this whole "It's about McCain versus Obama!" principle.

Except when we get to bash Obama, I guess. Then it's ok.

Which isn't to excuse Obama's remark, particularly, because as you point out, at least he ought to talk about her in terms of being Governor of Alaska.

Although he does have a point, of sorts. The ability to run a successful high-level political campaign isn't nothing. Not that I'll be arguing that that alone makes Obama worthy of being President, but it's not an easy thing to do.

Either way, it's kind of like I was saying about stones in glass houses earlier, only this time it's Obama, not Palin.

But let's not agreement on a bad comment stand in the way of some good old-fashioned wrangling, here:

Besides, it's pretty well known that the candidates don't handle the day to day management of everything that goes on in the campaign.


And Governors do? Sarah Palin really handles day to day management of every little thing the state of Alaska does? As opposed to delegating things like she'd need to do as President? (remember that we're comparing Obama to Palin here) Because if she can't delegate, that's kind of a problem, now isn't it.

Heh. Seriously, couldn't they have picked a cooler word to use as a bash? Like The Obamassiah?


I agree. Obamamessiah just sounds a little off to me.

Don't like a candidate? Attack her family Inquirer style. Don't agree on her issues? Dis her for daring to think of having a career while raising a baby. We'll ignore the last 30 years where the left has been promoting feminism and women in the work force and all that and still being able to raise families. I guess you can only do that if you're a left wing liberal who agrees with them.


Not to totally disagree on the Inquirer thing, because, well, they have, but...

...All of those articles, such as, oh, I don't know, this AP story, or, I don't know, all of those articles I used in the Palin thread...those are all sexist? All of them? Including the ones written by women?

And where does Hillary Clinton's being loathed by Republicans fit into this, exactly? Is disagreeing with her on issues sexist too?

But I think my ultimate point is made better here.

And hey, it's not just liberals with problems with Palin. Just ask Andrew Sullivan or David Frum (also here.

We leave aside, for the moment, questions of how questioning Palin's qualifications are yellow journalism, yet calling Obama names is...perfectly ok? I must be missing something. Maybe because I'm sick right now? I dunno.

And since when is how somebody shoots a rifle a qualification for high office, or any office for that matter?

But anyway.

       
I'm happy to see that we're sticking to this whole "It's about McCain versus Obama!" principle.


Yep. I'm real happy Obama is sticking to it too... oh wait. He's not. Hence his stupid quote attacking Palin for being a mayor while ignoring her being a governor while he's running against McCain for an office McCain is infinitely more qualified for than he is. Yeah. That McCain vs Obama race. I don't suppose it's ok to call Obama a hypocrite then is it? Or would I be calling him names now?

And you're seriously going to justify Obama claiming executive experience solely on the basis of his running a campaign? A campaign he's been running mind you for the last 2 years when he's supposed to be busy representing the people of Illinois as a legislator, not an executive. Running a campaign does nothing to qualify you as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. Sarah Palin can claim such experience from her time as governor of Alaska since she's clearly Commander in Chief of the Alaskan National Guard. Running a campaign ( instead of doing your job as senator ) doesn't provide you with necessary foreign policy experience. Sarah Palin has that as well to a limited degree, due to her involvement in Iraq and the whole command of her National Guard troops. Plus she's spent some time in Iraq herself. Before the surge made it truly safe for her to do so even. Obama didn't do that until just recently when it became clear his political campaign needed the press coverage of it. Notably after the surge which DID make it safe for him to do so. Obama is claiming that managing 2,500 people qualifies him to manage hundreds of thousands of federal employees. Palin managed 10 times that many while at the same time raising a family and dealing with a risky pregnancy. And she did the job so well she has an 80% approval rating in Alaska. So yeah. I'm going to call bullshit left and right, up and down, anytime the Dems and the media decide to play the "she was just mayor of a small town in Alaska" card. That's still more executive experience than Obama can muster.

The credibility of your AP article is toast btw:
AP said:

While Palin notes she rejected plans to build a $398 million bridge from Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents and an airport, that opposition came only after the plan was ridiculed nationally as a "bridge to nowhere."


This is flat wrong. The bridge had an initial budget of $220 million. It rose in less than a year to $398 million. Because they can't even fact check something this simple which we went over in spades in the last thread you'll excuse me if I summarily dismiss the rest of the article. And the characterization of the island as being home to 50 people is entirely dismissive of the 200,000 annual visitors to the area every year. Yeah. Seems like somewhat relevant information in the grand scheme of the bridge project.

And I doubt I need to remind you that the left wing media spent the entire week before the RNC attacking and ridiculing Palin. It backfired and the polls now reflect this. So way to go lefty media types. Keep it up, we'll breeze into the White House in 2 months as the nation's hockey moms rally to Palin's defense as they've been so well trained over the last 30 years to do by the left.

Hillary Clinton is loathed by many Republicans for her Communistic/Socialistic policies. Not because she's female. That you'd even suggest it betrays an underlying thought process that's rather disturbing IMO.

The Daily Show said:

We should not even be talking about Sarah Palin because it's sexist.


Yep. Expected response really. Republicans point out that the Dems have said and reported some mean, nasty, sexist things about Palin that have nothing to do with the issues, her qualifications, or her character. So the Dems blow the whole thing out of proportion like a bunch of Emo kids and try to claim that you can't talk about her at all in any capacity because it's sexist. Yeah. The comment alone makes me glad NoScript blocked the video. No point in wasting my time on more biased liberal tripe. And in looking over the subtitles to his collection of videos, people take this man seriously???

Sullivan linked through to some place called Mudflats, which linked through to some rag or something the Dems created in 2006 during the governor's race back then. On the very first page is this:
Palin’s tenure as mayor of Wasilla was marred by tremendous staff turnover, first when she fired most of the top staff—including the city’s librarian—because she questioned their loyalty, and then later when staff quit because of her micromanaging style.


Someone didn't do proper fact checking. The city's librarian was in fact NOT fired. Once again, I call BS. This level of gross error in a 63 page document destroys the credibility of the rest of the entire document. So you'll once more forgive me if I don't waste the time reading the rest. Especially since it's not properly sourced so this information can be independently verified. As if I'd trust a partisan document to begin with. But you can't say I didn't at least look. I also question how you could consider Sullivan a not-liberal when his bias shines through clearly in that regard.

David Frum seems to have trouble sticking to his attack points:

If anything were to happen to a President McCain, the destiny of the free world would be placed in the hands of a woman who until the day before Friday was a small-town mayor.


Where he said just one paragraph before:
In November, 2006, she was elected governor of the state, a job she has held for a little more than 18 months.


However, common in both is a clearly demeaning tone against her for having no experience. Seriously, this no experience train left the station a long time ago and these liberal media guys appear to have been left behind. Remember, they're all spending their time attacking Palin when they're supposed to be spending time attacking McCain since, you know, he's the one actually running against Obama. But I suppose it keeps everyone from focusing on how Biden wasted the last 30 years in the Senate being completely and utterly wrong in every foreign policy decision that he ever voted on. That's not the kind of experience I want in a leader. A 30 year record of being dead wrong every time bothers me a whole lot more than being a normal human being and making some mistakes along the way to where you are now.

We leave aside, for the moment, questions of how questioning Palin's qualifications are yellow journalism, yet calling Obama names is...perfectly ok?


We apparently also left aside the fact that I said the press attacking Palin because of her daughter and for being female and everything BUT her qualifications is Yellow Journalism. And it's hard for the press to be chastised for calling Obama names when they're, oh, I dunno, not doing it? Mojo called him a name. One I didn't even know he'd been tagged with. I was also clearly joking about "Obamassiah" and it appeared you noticed this, but maybe not?

And I don't know. I suppose one could make a stretch that firing a weapon is useful defense experience?

Oh, and by the way, Obama is running against McCain. Liberal press, could you all please try and keep this in mind? Thanks. I really appreciate it. Compare Palin to Biden all you like, but I notice you're not, I'd really like to see you try. I know you can do it. Just please try?

       
On the blog technical note, is there a setting for the quote tags that lets you attribute as you're doing, or are you doing so manually?

On the politics note...

*snip a whole lot of missing the point*


The point, in case you missed it, was not to attack Palin on the issues myself, because, well, there's a comment thread right below this one where I do a whole lot of that.

The point is to disagree with this comment:

Don't agree on her issues? Dis her for daring to think of having a career while raising a baby.


Which I've done by linking to several journalists expressing lack of confidence in Palin...on concrete issues, not just the baby thing, which although it has come up, isn't really the focus for a whole lot of people, although I will grant you that he did talk some shit about the baby thing, although he's got reams and reams (a week or more's worth now) of actual, concrete issues with Palin, as a quick glance through his archives will reveal.

And to disagree with this comment:

I guess you can only do that (promote feminism) if you're a left wing liberal who agrees with them (the media).


Parenthetical clarifications mine.

Which I have done by linking primarily to two journalists who are self-proclaimed conservatives, and in other columns express views that, last I checked, were conservative, while calling themselves, yes, conservatives.

So, yeah, I dunno. Clearly this is all the fault of the liberal media, who...oh wait, conservatives. Right.

I'm further making the point that if it's sexist to be questioning Palin's record, that pretty much invalidates all criticism of Hillary Clinton's record, because she's, well, a woman. The further point beyond that is, albeit I made it through sarcasm, is that trying to invalidate legitimate criticism of a candidate, be it Palin or Clinton, by calling it sexist is ridiculous.

We apparently also left aside the fact that I said the press attacking Palin because of her daughter and for being female and everything BUT her qualifications is Yellow Journalism.


And so it is. And as I've just demonstrated pretty much off-handedly, there's a not-precisely small group of people questioning Palin on legitimate issues. Now, they may be innacurate in their criticisms, that happens. But it is not illegitimate to level criticism on issues.

I'll leave off on the Obamamessiah thing for the moment.

Yep. I'm real happy Obama is sticking to it too... oh wait. He's not. Hence his stupid quote attacking Palin for being a mayor while ignoring her being a governor while he's running against McCain for an office McCain is infinitely more qualified for than he is. Yeah. That McCain vs Obama race. I don't suppose it's ok to call Obama a hypocrite then is it? Or would I be calling him names now?


This would be the point where I'm going to ask you to provide a cite of Obama saying he wasn't going to attack Palin at all, ever. Go on, I'll wait.

Until then, as best I can remember, the only person around here saying we shouldn't compare Obama to Palin has been...you. Which I guess makes it a little weird for you to then turn around and...compare Obama to Palin.

For those of you who missed the last thread, understand that my position on that particular issue is that we ought to be comparing ticket to ticket, not person to person. As best I understand, that's the position of both of the actual campaigns thus far, insofar as they have a stated position on the matter.

This concludes our post on the actual point of what I was trying to say. I may get around to the tangental points in a time and in another post.

       
Proclaiming oneself to be conservative does not a conservative make. They need to be able to follow through on that with their opinions, positions, etc. and neither of the two you cite as conservatives actually are. Now, perhaps to them they are, but I submit they both have no idea what that really means to those of us who have demonstrated we are.

I'm further making the point that if it's sexist to be questioning Palin's record, that pretty much invalidates all criticism of Hillary Clinton's record, because she's, well, a woman.


And I'm making the counter-point that nobody is saying it's sexist to question her record. I'm saying her record has little if anything to do with the private family details of her life such as whether or not her daughter is pregnant, and the entire "well she's got a family to raise, WTF is she doing running for office?" argument. Last time I saw someone make that argument against Barack and Michelle Obama they got called sexists for it. So fair is fair. If it's off limits for Obama, it's off limits for Palin. If it's not, then, well, maybe the Obamas should drop out of the race and go back to raising their children.

And yes. You've linked to several people questioning Palin on issues. I've countered by saying they're not doing their fact checking because a 2 minute Google turned up contradictory information, thus invalidating the entire criticism. Credibility means a lot to those of us who are trying to be objective about this. But as I've likely said millions of times, it doesn't seem to matter to the left wing press who reports things they deliberately leave critical details out of, or flat out lie about. Such as why Palin scrapped the bridge. Or the claim that she fired the librarian, when that simply didn't happen. She may have wanted to, but that's not the same as actually going through with it. It's also one of the reasons Wikipedia is not a reliable source for this kind of information. People link to the articles you link to, citing them as legit sources, when often those sources have no verifiable facts to back it up. Thus creating an illusion of authority where none exists, and as such nobody questions it.

I'm also not the only person complaining about how Obama is comparing himself to Palin. A good many of the Fox commentators have pointed this out and are wondering why Obama won't compare himself to McCain. It's apparently so obvious even their liberal reporters have asked the question. The analysts they interview about it don't even know why that is, and they're not all Republican analysts either. But, oh, right, I forgot. Fox News is full of right wing attack dogs and therefore not a legitimate source of news. Of course, local talk radio commentators have brought up the same points with people they interview and never get a straight answer about why that is either. But, oh, right, right wing attack dogs.

So yes. Compare ticket to ticket. Candidate to candidate. I'm still waiting for an analysis of Biden vs Palin. Patiently. Hopefully. You'll forgive me if I don't hold my breath or place any wagers on that happening. Might be because Palin makes Biden look, well, like a moron? And they're simply afraid to go up against McCain at all from what I can see.

       
Oh, and in answer to your technical question:

[quote=Someone]
is how I'm doing it. Manually. It doesn't come out very well sometimes though. I need to fix that up a bit I think.

       
Yeah, ok, I'll hit up the tangental stuff, I suppose.

We've hashed most of this out in the previous Palin thread, but.

And you're seriously going to justify Obama claiming executive experience solely on the basis of his running a campaign? A campaign he's been running mind you for the last 2 years when he's supposed to be busy representing the people of Illinois as a legislator, not an executive.


No, I'm saying that, as an achievement, it's more than I think everyone else in this thread has been giving him credit for. What I actually said was this:

Although he does have a point, of sorts. The ability to run a successful high-level political campaign isn't nothing. Not that I'll be arguing that that alone makes Obama worthy of being President, but it's not an easy thing to do.


I guess I was being clear enough there, but I guess not.

I'd just like to note here that this whole section of your post, comparing Obama to Palin, which we're about to do some more, is in direct response to me saying this:

I'm happy to see that we're sticking to this whole "It's about McCain versus Obama!" principle.


As opposed to, say, the one sentence in my whole post where I actually WAS comparing the two.

But since we're going there, and to quote you again:

A campaign he's been running mind you for the last 2 years when he's supposed to be busy representing the people of Illinois as a legislator, not an executive.


Leaving aside everything that says about John McCain, who let us remember has run for President TWICE, let us do a brief THOMAS search. Since I can't figure out how to link the results, you can do this yourself by using the "Browse bills by sponsor" and then selecting the Senator of your choice. And the results are:

John McCain: 38 bills in this session, latest action on 7/31/08, 2 more bills with a 6/19/08 action date. Most of them date back into 2007.
Barack Obama: 129 bills in this session, 4 of which had action in July, 3 more of which had action in June.

For what it's worth, you can find Obama's Senate voting record on his Senate website, which indeed contains a significant number of Not Votings, but as you say, the man's running an election campaign. Go back about a year, and you'll find an active record of positions one way or the other the vast majority of the time.

I think it's also worth noting that McCain provides no such information on his own website, which I guess I find curious and a little non-transparent. I can't imagine it being a lot different, however, and random selection of votes from the Senate appears to be backing me up, with the two Senators not voting at roughly concurrent times.

Biden, for what this is worth, doesn't provide voting records either, but that same Senate page, for every random vote I checked, he showed up one way or the other. He's also sponsored 141 bills in this session of Congress, and I gave up counting, but something like 25 or 30 of them got acted on in the last 3 months or got made into actual laws.

I didn't check Palin's legislative record for the obvious reasons.

But let us move on.

Running a campaign does nothing to qualify you as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. Sarah Palin can claim such experience from her time as governor of Alaska since she's clearly Commander in Chief of the Alaskan National Guard. Running a campaign ( instead of doing your job as senator ) doesn't provide you with necessary foreign policy experience. Sarah Palin has that as well to a limited degree, due to her involvement in Iraq and the whole command of her National Guard troops.


A National Guard which, as we've already been over, she doesn't really run in any significant foreign sense, though she does get to run it in, you know, natural disasters and other state senses. In Iraq, the AKNG is federalized, as we know.

Which isn't to suggest that Obama somehow has actual troop command experience, which he does not, and nor does Biden for that matter. Let us not overstate Palin's experience here, however.

And for that matter, let us not forget that it's unlikely that running, insofar as she actually does on a day to day basis (which I suggest isn't much) the ~4,200-person AKNG, compares favorably to the Navy career and squadron command experience of John McCain, who as we all know did some really amazing stuff.

In short, the only person who has an actual horse to run in the command experience race is John McCain.

As to Palin's experience in Iraq, well, let's add some more quote first:

Plus she's spent some time in Iraq herself. Before the surge made it truly safe for her to do so even. Obama didn't do that until just recently when it became clear his political campaign needed the press coverage of it. Notably after the surge which DID make it safe for him to do so.


As best I can find out via Google searching, and if you can find more on this I'd be obliged, Palin has made one trip, in July of 2007, to Kuwait (I've seen one mention of a "brief stop" in Iraq). This is about the one news article I could find, and this is a typical blog entry on the subject.

Kuwait, let us be perfectly clear, is not Iraq by any stretch of the imagination, and pretty much any reading of things written by troops deployed in the area will confirm that. Which isn't to denegrate Palin's going there, and what's more, her trip to Germany is worthy of praise as well. But I notice she's never been to Afghanistan, among other places.

Now, on the assumption that foreign travel makes you more qualified to be commander in chief, let's be realistic, here - neither Palin or Obama has anything on Biden or McCain for travel. That should be fairly obvious, given the length of those two men's Senate careers at the very least, never mind McCain's Navy career.

Now, as to Obama and his trip, you are clearly and demonstrably wrong, here, as he took a trip to Iraq in 2006, and allow me to quote Fox News on the issue:

McCain has visited Iraq eight times since the war began. Obama has been to Iraq once, in 2006, before the surge credited with allowing the oil-rich nation a chance to rebuild.


So that's two trips, anyway, one of them...before the surge, even. And he's at least been on the ground in Afghanistan, which Palin has not.

So if you want to play games revolving around who took what trip when, Palin's not even in the running. Not even compared to Obama, who I'd call delinquent. That one's between Biden and McCain.

Let me further note that you're the one who brought up the trip comparison between Palin and Obama in the first place, here.

Let me further note that my whole point regarding Palin and foreign policy is that she doesn't even have an opinion, which I proved in the other thread with quotes, and that's at odds with every other candidate in this race, all of whom have established records one way or the other. And, well, considering that Iraq (and the GWOT in general) is, like, the major issue of our time, it strikes me as a very very bad idea to elect somebody to the second highest office in the land who has no clear position on it.

Obama is claiming that managing 2,500 people qualifies him to manage hundreds of thousands of federal employees. Palin managed 10 times that many while at the same time raising a family and dealing with a risky pregnancy. And she did the job so well she has an 80% approval rating in Alaska. So yeah. I'm going to call bullshit left and right, up and down, anytime the Dems and the media decide to play the "she was just mayor of a small town in Alaska" card. That's still more executive experience than Obama can muster.


Keeping in mind everything I just said, and leaving aside Palin's actual record, which I think is mixed at best, I'm really not trying to argue that particular point with you, since, well, duh.

This is flat wrong. The bridge had an initial budget of $220 million. It rose in less than a year to $398 million. Because they can't even fact check something this simple which we went over in spades in the last thread you'll excuse me if I summarily dismiss the rest of the article. And the characterization of the island as being home to 50 people is entirely dismissive of the 200,000 annual visitors to the area every year. Yeah. Seems like somewhat relevant information in the grand scheme of the bridge project.


No, actually, I won't excuse you for it. Leaving aside the price of the bridge, and the fact that they're attempting to stretch a months long controversy into like a sentence or two, the rest of that paragraph is, in fact, true, and which we went over at great length in the other thread, and the point is that you don't get to go around asking for a bunch of federal money, then claim you're against it.

Leaving aside most of the rest, which we'll establish the truth or fallacy of at great length in the coming months and probably even years, the bit about Obama's record is verifiably true, as is the bit about Palin's vs Biden's number of votes, as is the National Guard bit.

Also, since you were very and demonstrably wrong about Obama's time in Iraq, I suppose by your standards that means that nothing else you've written is worth reading because it's all wrong. Or are we not applying consistency, here?

And I doubt I need to remind you that the left wing media spent the entire week before the RNC attacking and ridiculing Palin. It backfired and the polls now reflect this. So way to go lefty media types. Keep it up, we'll breeze into the White House in 2 months as the nation's hockey moms rally to Palin's defense as they've been so well trained over the last 30 years to do by the left.


I guess I missed the part where popularity or the lack thereof is somehow equivilent to competency.

The actual media bit I've covered in the other post. Ditto on Hillary Clinton.

Yep. Expected response really. Republicans point out that the Dems have said and reported some mean, nasty, sexist things about Palin that have nothing to do with the issues, her qualifications, or her character. So the Dems blow the whole thing out of proportion like a bunch of Emo kids and try to claim that you can't talk about her at all in any capacity because it's sexist. Yeah. The comment alone makes me glad NoScript blocked the video. No point in wasting my time on more biased liberal tripe. And in looking over the subtitles to his collection of videos, people take this man seriously???


Sorry, if you refuse to actually watch the video, you don't get to pass judgement on it, since that one only vaguely representative line aside, you don't have any kind of clue what actually got said in it, now do you?

And again, not to defend the whole "OMG she faked teh baby!!!!1111one!" thing, but this is also a pretty serious issue of the Republican pot calling the Democratic kettle black. Remember Chelsea Clinton? Somehow I don't think you do.

I also question how you could consider Sullivan a not-liberal when his bias shines through clearly in that regard.


Look, not to try and back up Sullivan's sources' sources, because I have better things to do, especially when it's not even my point, but, yeah, ok. Forgive me for not realizing that a man who describes himself as a conservative, has written on at length (such as here), has written books on conservatism, and is widely regarded as a conservative, is actually a secret liberal spy.

With regards to Frum, I suggest you read for rhetoric comprehension (the day before Friday bit).

However, common in both is a clearly demeaning tone against her for having no experience. Seriously, this no experience train left the station a long time ago and these liberal media guys appear to have been left behind.


I guess I fail to see it as demeaning, since in other places both of them actively praise Palin for various things (Sullivan in particular, here). But they do both have concerns about her experience, especially in terms of foreign policy, which is a fair question.

If the experience train has left the station, why are we still arguing it? Why did you just write a couple of paragraphs talking about Palin's experience versus Obama's?

When you find some concrete things to say about Biden, we'll talk about Biden. Until then, I will decline.

Mojo called him a name. One I didn't even know he'd been tagged with. I was also clearly joking about "Obamassiah" and it appeared you noticed this, but maybe not?


- That name has been floating around for months, FYI.
- I was joking about it too, although I admit not well. I'm sick, sorry.
- Yellow Journalism involve(d/s) sensationalist stories (Bristol Palin, check) and labels (Obamamessiah/Obamessiah, check). Although in Obama's case, a better example would be the Muslim terrorist thing.

And I don't know. I suppose one could make a stretch that firing a weapon is useful defense experience?


...boy have I got a lot of members of the military, hunters, etc, who deserve to be President, then. ;)

       
Proclaiming oneself to be conservative does not a conservative make. They need to be able to follow through on that with their opinions, positions, etc. and neither of the two you cite as conservatives actually are. Now, perhaps to them they are, but I submit they both have no idea what that really means to those of us who have demonstrated we are.


I made this point above, but you're the only person I've ever heard make the claim that these two guys aren't conservatives, albeit Andrew Sullivan isn't much of a social conservative. I'm not going to try to sum up the careers of two men here, but I will suggest that a man who's worked for both George W Bush and Rudy Giuliani, who is a several times published author (Frum), and a man who spent a good deal of time supporting Bush, and who is again a published author on things conservative (Sullivan), are probably possessed of sufficient bonafides to be called conservatives, especially Frum.

And I'm making the counter-point that nobody is saying it's sexist to question her record. I'm saying her record has little if anything to do with the private family details of her life such as whether or not her daughter is pregnant, and the entire "well she's got a family to raise, WTF is she doing running for office?" argument. Last time I saw someone make that argument against Barack and Michelle Obama they got called sexists for it. So fair is fair. If it's off limits for Obama, it's off limits for Palin.


Then we are arguing for the same thing, here. Since you came of as arguing that all criticism of Palin was not allowed, however, well, I'll argue against that all day long.

And looking at the clock, I see that I pretty much have.

And yes. You've linked to several people questioning Palin on issues. I've countered by saying they're not doing their fact checking because a 2 minute Google turned up contradictory information, thus invalidating the entire criticism. Credibility means a lot to those of us who are trying to be objective about this.


As I said, my point was that the criticism, regardless of factual accuracy, was not, in fact, sexist. Also that your standards for such are ridiculous, but.

In either case, I've got a whole thread full of criticism down a post that IS accurate, and please, try and tell me Palin's (since we're talking about Palin, here) utter lack of foreign policy experience isn't valid criticism, here. Because we've all admitted that she's lacking.

Leaving aside the obvious fact that we're all for credibility and not lies, here.

Such as why Palin scrapped the bridge. Or the claim that she fired the librarian, when that simply didn't happen. She may have wanted to, but that's not the same as actually going through with it. It's also one of the reasons Wikipedia is not a reliable source for this kind of information. People link to the articles you link to, citing them as legit sources, when often those sources have no verifiable facts to back it up. Thus creating an illusion of authority where none exists, and as such nobody questions it.


Leaving out the random switch from talking about the press to talking about me, and I assure you we are not the same thing:

- On the bridge issue in particular, I find it a little hard to leave aside the idea that if you're going to be against the whole system of funding that said bridge is based on, you don't get to support the project, then not support it when people are looking. Nor, I think, should you keep the money.

Which entirely leaves aside the fact that a $220 million bridge to an island of 50 people and an airport is not somehow magically better than a $398 million bridge to the same place. That's not infrastructure spending we can believe in, I'm thinking.

- I have no dog in the librarian fight at all, and I'm going to continue with that.

- On the issue of Wikipedia, I don't remember the press linking to it at all. In the case of us, in the last thread, we both linked to it at least once, and in my case at least, it was for general background stuff. Trust me, I'm well aware of Wikipedia as a source.

- When I link to something like an Andrew Sullivan (Or TPM or what have you), I do so with the expectation that you will then follow through to their sources. Sometimes I go directly to the sources in question, sometimes not. I do operate on the theory that we can all do certain levels of reading analysis, however.

I'm also not the only person complaining about how Obama is comparing himself to Palin. A good many of the Fox commentators have pointed this out and are wondering why Obama won't compare himself to McCain. It's apparently so obvious even their liberal reporters have asked the question. The analysts they interview about it don't even know why that is, and they're not all Republican analysts either. But, oh, right, I forgot. Fox News is full of right wing attack dogs and therefore not a legitimate source of news. Of course, local talk radio commentators have brought up the same points with people they interview and never get a straight answer about why that is either. But, oh, right, right wing attack dogs.


ObJoke: Fox has liberal reporters?

- Note that I've linked to Fox several times, just not solely to Fox. I've also been critical of them when I thought they deserved it.

- In either case, yes, I'd welcome some Obama vs McCain action myself. I suspect we will get it, and in any event we will get debates. In either case, I find Palin worthy of criticism, so I'm not going to bash her getting some, so long as it is legitimate campaign criticism about legitimate campaign issues, as opposed to, say, the baby thing.

So yes. Compare ticket to ticket. Candidate to candidate. I'm still waiting for an analysis of Biden vs Palin. Patiently. Hopefully. You'll forgive me if I don't hold my breath or place any wagers on that happening. Might be because Palin makes Biden look, well, like a moron? And they're simply afraid to go up against McCain at all from what I can see.


It IS your blog, so feel free to do just that.

       
On the subject of media bias, this report is interesting. Note that the date on it is July 28 and that it thus does not include coverage of either veep pick or the conventions.

Their research methodology is summarized here.

.

       
Which I have done by linking primarily to two journalists who are self-proclaimed conservatives, and in other columns express views that, last I checked, were conservative, while calling themselves, yes, conservatives.


There are several types of conservatives and we all don't get along. Andrew Sullivan happens to be an economic conservative and loaths all social conservatives, especially the Christian right, most likely because he's queer. David Frum is a neo-conservative jew who is most interested in defense and foreign policy issues and also happens to despise the Christian right.

       
Somehow I feel as though I should have recorded everything I typed before your two posts into a script bot, because I sense the responses would have been fitting since you went right back over the same old stuff again.

The bridge is a non-issue except to the left who wants to paint Sarah Palin as John Kerry. Aka "flip-flopper". Except as we all know, Palin had a legitimate reason for torching the project. Kerry had no such legitimate reason for being in favor of war funding and then mysteriously being against it other than his electoral base wanted him to be. Characterize it however you like, it will not change the facts in the matter. (I can predict what kind of response I'll get from this too)

Since the bridge is the only real "dirt" they have, and even that's not legit, they're reverting to their normal tactics of smearing the person for personal issues instead of for policy issues. I'm still waiting on them to do this to Biden, but I think you and I both know they won't. And nor should they on the personal side. But they're not attacking his policies either. Wonder why that is.

Let me further note that you're the one who brought up the trip comparison between Palin and Obama in the first place, here.


No. Obama brought it up. I merely reacted to it. Bloggers don't create the news. They comment on it. Unlike the left wing press who is in fact in the business of manufacturing the news. Sometimes at our expense as bloggers. I'm just someone who thinks the press needs to get off it and focus on what we're actually voting for.

When I link to something like an Andrew Sullivan (Or TPM or what have you), I do so with the expectation that you will then follow through to their sources. Sometimes I go directly to the sources in question, sometimes not. I do operate on the theory that we can all do certain levels of reading analysis, however.


Well apparently you and I have a different standard for credibility of the sources being used. You read the and find truth. I read them and find inconsistencies which call their entire articles into question. They get paid to make sure their shit is right. I don't. So when I miss that Obama went to Iraq in 2006 in addition to 2008 nobody in any serious capacity is counting on me getting it 100%. Sullivan presumably has a research staff of some sort, even if it's just a pair of college kids. I'd assume the same about Frum. But hey. You know what they say about assuming. So when people use them as Wikipedia cite sources, and them you come along bootstrapping through Wikipedia and Sullivan, it seems to me maybe you should be looking for the inconsistencies too and not just taking him at his word because you happen to agree with him.

ObJoke: Fox has liberal reporters?


Aye, they do. And all joking aside, they're not crazy lunatic ones either. I don't agree with their positions on nearly everything they talk about but they've at least done their homework and aren't engaged in smear reporting. I haven't seen Alan Colmes or Mort Kondracke or any of the other ones I can't recall the names of ( damn, I suck bad at names ) pulling any of this baby stuff or trying to smear her for being a working mom like I've seen from the op-ed writers in the LA and NY Times or on local network TV.

In either case, I find Palin worthy of criticism, so I'm not going to bash her getting some, so long as it is legitimate campaign criticism about legitimate campaign issues, as opposed to, say, the baby thing.


When she starts getting some, let me know then. So far all the MSM has done is trash the baby thing left and right along with the whole mother of 5 bit.

As for me doing a comparison of Biden vs Palin, I just don't have that kind of desire. I'm not here to write that sort of thing up. I'll react to it if it ever gets done though. But again I'm not holding my breath.

       
Tyche said:

There are several types of conservatives and we all don't get along. Andrew Sullivan happens to be an economic conservative and loaths all social conservatives, especially the Christian right, most likely because he's queer. David Frum is a neo-conservative jew who is most interested in defense and foreign policy issues and also happens to despise the Christian right.


Yeah, I know. Perfectly aware, in fact. Which is why I find Samson's calling them liberals just a little strange, yknow?

Samson said:

The bridge is a non-issue except to the left who wants to paint Sarah Palin as John Kerry. Aka "flip-flopper". Except as we all know, Palin had a legitimate reason for torching the project. Kerry had no such legitimate reason for being in favor of war funding and then mysteriously being against it other than his electoral base wanted him to be. Characterize it however you like, it will not change the facts in the matter. (I can predict what kind of response I'll get from this too)


Actually, I'm pretty much done with the bridge topic. I read her record on the thing and find it sketchy. You clearly do not. Enough.

I'm not even touching Kerry.

Since the bridge is the only real "dirt" they have, and even that's not legit, they're reverting to their normal tactics of smearing the person for personal issues instead of for policy issues. I'm still waiting on them to do this to Biden, but I think you and I both know they won't. And nor should they on the personal side. But they're not attacking his policies either. Wonder why that is.


Leaving aside Biden, who I'm sure has had some level of coverage (but fairly close to zero, I agree), again, I'm seeing a whole lot of non-personal issues criticism here, including hitting Palin for a LACK of policy issues on foreign policy in particular. And again, I have provided any amount of discussion on these very issues.

We're also ignoring the whole Troopergate thing, which I've at least seen discussion of on CNN. True or not, the implications (abuse of power, namely), are far from personal. Personally, I'm withholding judgement on the thing, although my IANAL legal senses find some of the tactics sketchy.

Either way, there's a lot more here than the bridge, and you saying otherwise isn't going to make that any less true.

Samson said:

Dwip said:

Let me further note that you're the one who brought up the trip comparison between Palin and Obama in the first place, here.
No. Obama brought it up. I merely reacted to it. Bloggers don't create the news. They comment on it. Unlike the left wing press who is in fact in the business of manufacturing the news. Sometimes at our expense as bloggers. I'm just someone who thinks the press needs to get off it and focus on what we're actually voting for.


Obama in the first post said:

“Well, my understanding is that Governor Palin’s town of Wasilla has, I think, 50 employees. We’ve got 2,500 in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe $12 million a year. You know, we have a budget of about three times that just for the month. So I think that our ability to manage large systems and to execute I think has been made clear over the last couple of years.”


Where did he say anything about trips? The first mention I saw of it was from you.

Furthermore, what the hell does that bit about bloggers versus media have to do with what Obama said or you said? I'm confused.

Well apparently you and I have a different standard for credibility of the sources being used. You read the and find truth. I read them and find inconsistencies which call their entire articles into question. They get paid to make sure their shit is right. I don't. So when I miss that Obama went to Iraq in 2006 in addition to 2008 nobody in any serious capacity is counting on me getting it 100%. Sullivan presumably has a research staff of some sort, even if it's just a pair of college kids. I'd assume the same about Frum. But hey. You know what they say about assuming. So when people use them as Wikipedia cite sources, and them you come along bootstrapping through Wikipedia and Sullivan, it seems to me maybe you should be looking for the inconsistencies too and not just taking him at his word because you happen to agree with him.


Again, when I find something I find to be inaccurate, I attempt to point it out, and in all but two cases (the Frum and Sullivan articles linked to prove a point about criticism, not factual accuracy), I make an effort to find reputable sources, much less distinguish the bits I'm using to make my point from the bits I'm not. I may not be 100% good on that, but as you say.

That aside, what the hell are you trying to say about me and Wikipedia, here? Because, last I checked, I haven't cited it once in this thread, and while I did so in the last one, it was on such critical subjects as Ronald Reagan's old USAAF unit, population figures, and Civil War dead. You could probably question my use of it for the Alaska Permanent Fund, but. And as best I can tell, none of my sources or my sources' sources used it. What the hell are you talking about here?

And trust me, there's a lot of things Sullivan (among others) opines about that I don't agree with, or think is bogus. Sometimes I point this out, oft times I don't even mention or post it. There's a pretty large internal source weeding process that gets done on my end, trust me.

*snip joke discussion*

When she starts getting some, let me know then.


Well, like I said. I keep on posting stuff by people saying things about Palin, bridge and otherwise, and you keep focusing solely on the bridge, so other than to keep waving more of it in front of you, I'm not sure what else I can do, here.

As a note to the onlookers, I'd like to point out that none of this debate matters, because political debates and elections are just something the Squirrel Aliens and the Negative Magnetic Space Wedgy let us keep doing to make us think we're actually free. It's sort of like the Matrix, rea...

...oh God, what's that noise? Wha...

*chitter!* *chitter chitter squeak chitter!*

NO CARRIER

       
Where did he say anything about trips? The first mention I saw of it was from you.

Furthermore, what the hell does that bit about bloggers versus media have to do with what Obama said or you said? I'm confused.


Sorry. Misread. Didn't notice the word trips and thought you were claiming I was the first one to start comparing Palin to Obama.

Interesting that the joke discussion got snipped. The humor part aside, I thought I made a pretty good point about how to properly handle criticizing a candidate. Which they do. But they leave the petty tabloid style crap out of it. Like I said, their policy positions are crap, but at least they're discussing it.

*** (A black cat walks by) (Seconds later, the same black cat walks by)
"Whoa. Deja vu."
"What did you just say?"
"Nothing. Just had a little deja vu."
"What happened? What did you see?"
"A black cat went past us and then I saw another that looked just like it."
"How much like it? Was it the same cat?"
"It might have been. I'm not sure. What is it?"
"A deja vu is usually a glitch in the Matrix. It happens when they change something."

Methinks I've posted all this before.... :)

BTW, is it bad to be able to post stuff like that purely from memory?

       
BTW, is it bad to be able to post stuff like that purely from memory?


...nah. That movie is awesome.

I think if you were quoting scenes from the third movie from memory, however, we would need to have a talk.

       
We're also ignoring the whole Troopergate thing, which I've at least seen discussion of on CNN. True or not, the implications (abuse of power, namely), are far from personal. Personally, I'm withholding judgement on the thing, although my IANAL legal senses find some of the tactics sketchy.


Tasers?

       
...since you aren't posting anything new to talk about.

- At the very least, I'm seeing a couple few bloggers wonder where the hell the MSM is in talking or lack thereof about Biden.

- Obama's interview with Bill O'Reilly. Eh, not shabby. I felt better about O'Reilly for it. Wished he would've let Obama actually talk, but I'll go with his reasons for not. OTOH, you don't get to wave around "socialist" like it was the 1950s, here, or in lieu of an actual criticism.

- Gibson's interview with Palin. I was pretty sure this was going to be bad, but... Jesus. That was embarrassing. I mean, the part where she was all over town on finance was bad enough, but the foreign policy stuff... I don't even have the words for how tragic that was. I mean, I just don't. I've been sitting here trying for like 5 minutes, and... God, don't we care about expertise at all? Even a little?

- Too, the tonal difference between the two interviews. At least O'Reilly and Obama were having an actual discussion about actual detailed points. There was a legitimate conversation going on there, and disagree with O'Rielly on a few points though I do, when he thwacked Obama it was generally either a legitimate disagreement or a legitimate thwack.

Palin, yeah, not so much, really. A few less details on her part, a few more explaining what the details even were. Again, I cannot express how unbelievably tragic I find this.

But I suppose most of y'all probably viewed things differently.

       
Eh. I don't know. I thought O'Reilly's interview with Obama was a softball. He didn't challenge him enough on the things he should have and tried picking some fights where he didn't need to. Overall not bad but I came away from it feeling short changed. Obama sure as hell danced around on a lot of things and O'Reilly let him get away with it. But I can also assure you Obama will not face another interview this tough again and it was wise strategy to get it done early.

I didn't see Gibson's interview with Palin so I can't comment on it but considering how you think she's a liar on the bridge thing I can't imagine your assessment is entirely objective.

Either way, I am once again finding myself needing to remind people that Obama isn't running against Palin. He's running against McCain and I can guarantee you if the toe to toe ever gets started there Obama will get torn to pieces on the experience issue.

EDIT (because I get to do that):' http://www.upi.com/news/issueoftheday/2008/09/12/ABCs_Gibson_grilled_Palin_hard_but_it_may_backfire/UPI-81241221234472/'

So it would seem I thought it was a different Gibson. After having read this piece, I can guarantee you that she got hammered on purpose and likely with malice. It's how the left works and it shines brightly in the description this article gives of the interview. And this is a UPI reporter who is pointing out the very clear liberal bias over at ABC. Essentially one of their own calling them out for it.

       
Samson?

Can you please watch the interview before you make up your mind about it?

       
Palin Interview

Part 1 -' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jvfm8tn_Cw&feature=user'
Part 2 -' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCxYSWy-vxM&NR=1'
Part 3 -' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2phSE7BGH8&feature=iv'
Part 4 -' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nD4zd-kqqJE&NR=1'
Part 5 -' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EPLTgNK9zQ&feature=user'
Part 6 -' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQWCT--UOYY&feature=iv'

Part 1, in particular, is...not good. Even when I agree with her, and I do, it's fairly clear she has no idea what she's talking about on several issues, the most obvious of which is the Bush Doctrine. Never mind the bits where she clearly attempts to sidestep the question.

Also Part 4, which has a whole lot more avoiding the question and lack of detail than I feel comfortable with.

Never mind Part 5.

Leaving aside the factual inaccuracies, like this. Or this, for that matter. Which leaves aside how silly that "you can see Russia" thing is in the first place.

...when you've actually seen the interview in question, I'll take your article a little more seriously. Well, except how I won't because it wasn't actually talking about anything Palin actually said that I could tell, but yknow. Also, I think O'Reilly would've been a better comparison, but whatever. And all of that aside, I guess we should complain when Putin is a bit hard on her? The press is SUPPOSED to be hard on candidates. They are SUPPOSED to ask hard questions. That's their job in this sort of thing.

...but again, listen to Palin.

If I knew anything about Biden or McCain interviews, I would watch those too. Since I have nothing but Obama and Palin, here we are.

And let me be clear, here. This isn't so much about Palin, so much as it is about minimum standards of expertise and intellectual curiosity we ought to hold our candidates to, be they Republican, Democrat, Purple People Eater Party, or what have you. I actually agree with Palin on any number of things. But that's not the point. The point is, well, this.

       
That would be a bit like asking me to read the Weekly World News before deciding the picture on the cover is photoshopped. ABC's reputation for unfair treatment of right wing political candidates precedes it, thus making it a pretty big waste of time to expect the opposite.

       
...Fail.

Also, stupid spamblocker, Re: my other comment with actual links in it.

       
Man, that's like asking me to read a book and find out if it's dangerous before we ban it!

If I can watch Fox - and actually for real pay attention to the points O'Reilly is making, not snark the whole time - you can watch ABC.

       
<< prev 1, 2 next >>
Comments Closed
Comments for this entry have been closed.
Anonymous
Register

Forgot Password?

SuMoTuWeThFrSa
 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30  

Click for Chino, California Forecast