Sarah Palin wants to know what a VP does

Not quite right:

FDR, was the Assistant Secretary for the Navy, thus he had federal experience from that agency. This may not be much, but is experience on the federal level.

Eishehower, certainly had tons of experience dealing with federal agencies as a commanding general. And he certainly had lots of experience with a huge bureaucracy.

Nixon was a senator, elected in the mid-term election of 1950, from California and was in the VP before becoming president.

Kennedy was a US congressman from Massachusets in the House of Representatives for 6 years.

Truman was a senator from Missouri, first elected in 1934 and re-elected in 1940. In 1944 he became the VP with Roosevelt.

Bush I, had lots of experience on the Federal Level from various agencies he either we in or ran.

All these, whom you said had no experience, did indeed have federal gov. experience.

========================================================================================================
No experience:

Bush II, Carter and Reagan did not have federal government experience. Carter will not go down as a great president. Reagan's star will dull as time goes by, my opinion. Bush II will go down in history as one of the worst presidents in our history.

This does not indicate to me that a person with no federal experience is a good candidate.

 

I didn't say that. Please go back and read more carefully. I said federal executive experience. That's the presidency, the executive branch. There were a couple of vice-presidents as you mentioned (and I had forgotten) but remember that then VP has not traditionally been much more than ceremonial. Heading divisions or agencies is not the same as federal executive experience. But Obama and Biden have none of that.

Carter will go down as the worst in the modern era by a large margin. Reagan will be viewed as one of the better of the modern era. Bush's reputation will likely increase over time when Iraq settles down and things begin to take shape in the Middle East as I think they will. I imagine he will be seen as a strong visionary who had the courage to do the politically unpopular for the long term good.

 

Good grief, using your above explanation and discounting VP's experience, then no president has had executive experience. That is straining at a gnat to catch a camel in trying justify the 'executive' experience of the lady from Alaska.

I respectfully disagree with you on Reagan and Bush.

How far back do you consider the 'modern era?' I believe in 200 years H. Truman will be viewed as the best president in the 20th century.

 

Not federal executive experience. But some had executive experience at the state level, and that is far more qualifying than being a Senator or a Congressman. A person who has run a business is far more qualified in many respects than a Senator or a Congressman.

Not really, not if the point is understood. I am not trying to justify her executive experience, but let's face it ... she is the one with the most executive experience out of the four of them which really shows just how bad this situation is.

I would say the modern is post WWI or so, may WWII. I don't know. I am not going back to the 1800s or some such. I think Reagan will be noted for bringing hope and respect back to America and more importantly for taking a stand and ending the Cold War. That is why I think he will be among the better. My comments on Bush should not be taken to say that he will be called great by any means. I simply think his reputation will improve (which it would be hard not to in some respects). Overall, I don't think his foreign policy will be seen as the disaster it is viewed as now, because the partisan politics will be gone.

Part of the thing that clouds the judgment of any president is partisanship. If a Democrat thought Bush was doing the right thing, he couldn't say it because that's not how you win elections. And you watch, if Obama gets elected, he will do pretty much exactly what Bush has done even though he has campaigned differently. That's partisanship.

 

I could be wrong bu it doesn't seem taking on corruption in the great state of Alaska compares to taking on corruption in a city like NY which doesn't compare to what's on the Hill. This is why bipartisanship is not about taking on corruption but about getting things done in spite of the corruption. I have a feeling politics on the Hill is a little different than the politics in AK.

 

BTW, I wonder if Palin can spell potato.

 

ROFL

but my message is too short

 

Isnt that question/comment/snide comment a little childish?

AJ

 

Well, I will give her that. She is the prettiest person to ever run for VP, and unfortunately, that will get a few votes for the old man.

 

No, just a comparison.

 

I did figure - being a woman intelligent enough to become governor - that her comment was tongue-in-cheek. I, of course, could be wrong. I work with 8th graders and they frequently remind me that I am wrong

 

I believe they are counting on her youth, fresh perspective and her being in touch with the common person. She is presented as soccer mom with a life membership to the NRA which makes her the representative from next door. McCain's 5 million dollar comment really exposed his flank in the economy category and made many feel he doesn't know our struggles.

I see McCain focusing on foreign affairs and leaving most domestic matters into the hands of his VP. I see her ruffling feathers within the "Good Ole boys" parts of the house with some initial success but they will eventually flee to their long entrenched ally in the oval office to make her back off. She is going to learn a lot went into that bridge to nowhere and she can't stay in the way of politician pockets and political resume'. That bridge represented jobs for Alaska's construction industry and major contracts to some very influential pockets not to mention the padding it put on somebodies resume.

 

What he said I agree with. He has his opinion and view just as you do. His doesn't agree with yours and he knows that. Instead, he profoundly put the question to the minds of experts on the subject when he said Theologians and Scientist don't agree on this matter so how can the president be the expert. I think his was a brilliant political response for the conservative audience present at that time.

 

I agree to some degree but we can't forget The President, VP and executive branches primary responsibility is to enforce national law as given in the Constitution. Her degree is in journalism and her experience in national and constitutional law is limited to the year she was governor.

 

I think you eft off the best pick which was Condee...

 

So why does Palin 1 year of Governorship carry so much weight in the conservative view? Why does Obama lock of experience hurt him so much? I mean if lack of experience is the norm, why is he being penalized?

 

It doesn't. The only point is that it is more than Obama and Biden put together. Being a governor is an executive position.

It doesn't. It is lack of judgment, lack of sound policy, lack of moral values, and poor choices that is hurting him. Being inexperienced doesn't help him though.

I don't think lack of experience is the norm. And Obama is not being penalized. He is being hailed as the Messiah, which reveals a disturbing lack of judgment by some. If anything, Obama is getting a free pass.

 

You agree that making moral choices about defending the unborn is above the pay grade of the president? Where does that kick in? How much do you have to make before you decide to defend the unborn?

In common terms we call that "punting." The fact that theologians and scientists disagree does not mean that the issue is therefore unimportant or that a decision should not be made. The truth is that life begins at conception. That is biblically and scientifically clear. At conception, a new person has come into being. All of the DNA is there and it is completely separate DNA, and all that is needed for life is there and it is growing from day one. It is life. If people disagree with that, they are wrong.

 

I wish I could agree with you on this one. But in a number of places the Bible states that live begins with the first breath.

 

I am aware of no place where that is the case. I am aware of several places where the Bible ascribes life to those still in the womb (Jeremiah, John, David, etc). So the Bible places life prior to the first breath. So should we.