VPILF

[Grand Fromage]

[ç i p h é r]

I didn't criticize the article, I criticized the source: The New York Times. Yeah, I highlighted the fact that your excerpts lacked any references to actual records. Anyone can fabricate news, and the NY Times has. Or have you forgotten?

Let me put it into perspective you'll understand. Would you trust an article published by Fox news?

Ridiculous. Simply by virtue of being a Constitutional Law professor he understands the purpose of government and the rights of the people better than McCain and Palin put together. Our government is a system of laws, you know. Education and knowledge of the law matters. Palin's education consists of a BS in journalism. She was a sports reporter prior to running for city council. She was mayor of a town of 7000, governor of a state of 670,000 (that's a small city in California). She's Not Ready.

So that would be analogous to claiming that anyone with an MBA irrespective of experience is ready to be CEO of a trillion dollar, multi-national corporation on the basis that they understand the principles of business and how the business world functions. Actually, that's a slightly stronger argument because there's no direct relationship between studying the constitution and running an administration.

But then, you're the staunchest of Democrats. You wouldn't ever look beyond devotion to your own party. So don't take it from me, take it from your own (Clinton and Biden).

"Obama isn't ready."

What are we to make of that? Were they just lying then to get elected or are they lying now to be loyal soldiers for their party?

I don't necessarily require much experience if I believe that the candidate has the intellectual chops to "learn on the job", as it were.

Pretty much how young people think. Experience never matters when you don't understand the value of experience yourself.

But what I'm curious about is, who do you suppose he's going to learn from? Biden? People in his administration? Trial and error?

Ms. Palin’s problem is not that she was mayor of a small town or has only been in the Alaska governor’s office a short while. Her problem (and now ours) is that she is not well versed on the critical matters confronting the country at one of the most crucial turning points in its history.

Yeah well, she's been busy governing her state. You want to condemn her for not getting up to speed on national issues in 2 weeks? Obama has had 2 years to polish his talking points. He still can't respond well to questions he's never heard before. He's no different than Palin in that respect, and he's demonstrated that time and again in this election. Inexperience is inexperience.

At least she's the VP. She'll have time to learn in the shadow of a bone fide presidential candidate.

I feel for Ms. Palin’s son who has been shipped off to the war in Iraq. But at his deployment ceremony, which was on the same day as the Charlie Gibson interview, Sept. 11, she told the audience of soldiers that they would be fighting “the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans.”

Was she deliberately falsifying history, or does she still not know that Iraq and Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the Sept. 11 attacks?

I have news for Mr. Herbert. Al Qaida is in Iraq. It's called Al Qaida in Iraq. Who do you think we've been fighting in Anbar province? Even Al Qaida declared Iraq as the central front a year or so ago.

So who's the ignoramus? Maybe he should just stick to covering social trends.

But anyway, I'm still looking for a well reasoned case that Obama has the experience necessary to be President. Pretend that I'm the hiring manager for the job and I'm not sold on this guy. What have I overlooked here? Persuade me.

[Veilan]

Persuade me.

Cute brown eyes?

[fluffmonster]

Fluffmonster wrote:
I don't necessarily require much experience if I believe that the candidate has the intellectual chops to "learn on the job", as it were.

Pretty much how young people think. Experience never matters when you don't understand the value of experience yourself.

I'm not young. Don't patronize me. I understand the value of experience very well, and I also understand that not all experience is created equal. Palin's experience in one of the smallest state bureaucracies in the nation is not equal to Obama's experience in the Chicago machine, and she shows to me that she's got less take-away understanding from it all in the bargain. This is even without considering that she's gotten where she is with a much dirtier hand. But let us not compare Obama and Palin, for that comparison is disasterously unfair to her (unless you are either racist or sexist), but Obama and McCain...

But what I'm curious about is, who do you suppose he's going to learn from? Biden? People in his administration? Trial and error?

The devil is in the details. If you have a decent logical framework for putting together the details that you don't already know, you can learn on the job and still ultimately have the capability to function as "the decider". The renegade side of McCain, which does admittedly appeal to me, also happens to be symptomatic in him of reliance on gut instinct. He may have had more exposure to the details than Obama as a result of having a quarter-century life "experience" advantage, but the policy conclusions he comes up with still end up as the same standard republican fare we've been living with for 8 years. His experience seems to count for little beyond a strong party affiliation. Certainly nothing more than what Obama brings to the table. Palin, I don't believe she has either intellectual framework or details. In fact, I kind of feel sorry for her...this supposedly independent woman who is in fact little more than the stereotepical lipstick with a penchant for hiring friends and firing enemies.

[Mulu]

So that would be analogous to claiming that anyone with an MBA irrespective of experience is ready to be CEO of a trillion dollar, multi-national corporation on the basis that they understand the principles of business and how the business world functions.

No, it would be analogous to claiming that a professor of business at a prestigious institution who had also run several smaller businesses and served on the board of the trillion dollar multi-national corporation could.

Actually, that's a slightly stronger argument because there's no direct relationship between studying the constitution and running an administration.

How would you know, you've never done either. I've at least done one.

Yeah well, she's been busy governing her state.

Actually she hasn't been. She's mostly absent from state government, hence the "Where's Sarah" pins worn by the Alaska legislature.

You want to condemn her for not getting up to speed on national issues in 2 weeks?

Yes. If McCain thought she was ready to be VP and she thought she was ready to be VP when he made the choice, what did they mean by that? To me, ready to be VP means knowing our national issues now, not at some unforeseen time in the future.

He still can't respond well to questions he's never heard before.

Example please.

I have news for Mr. Herbert. Al Qaida is in Iraq. It's called Al Qaida in Iraq.

And I have news for you, they were in no way responsible for the 9/11 attack. They are a new group, a franchise if you will of the original Al Qaida. I have more news for you, invading and occupying Iraq created them.

But anyway, I'm still looking for a well reasoned case that Obama has the experience necessary to be President. Pretend that I'm the hiring manager for the job and I'm not sold on this guy. What have I overlooked here? Persuade me.

His experience is nearly identical to Abraham Lincoln's at the time, with the addition of being a Constitutional Law professor. More importantly, he gets it. There's a reason that highly educated people tend to favor Obama as a candidate, he actually knows what he is talking about, unlike even McCain when the issue is anything other than war or campaign finance reform. McCain has his areas of expertise, but has too many gaps on very important issues like the economy, plus he has completely sold out to the religious fundamentalists who want to turn the clock back a century. Sure, he can hire economists, but ultimately he's the one who makes the call.

And despite the red shirt, blue shirt nonsense, I actually liked McCain in 2000. I still liked McCain when I watched his interview in "Why We Fight." I even liked McCain during the Republican primaries, until he sought out the endorsement of fundamentalist monsters like James Dobson. Now that he's picked Palin, he has firmly identified himself as an enemy of our nation, someone who cares more about winning than upholding the Constitution, as she would be hard at work tearing it down once given the chance.

[Mulu]

Let me put it into perspective you'll understand. Would you trust an article published by Fox news?

No, but the NYT has plenty of conservative writers. Whitey already pointed out to you that the 5 page article I quoted from was written by a team of highly respected journalists. If your opinion is that anyone who is not writing for some ultra-conservative rag is actually a liberal, well you're just closing your mind to any other opinion but the radical right wing.

[Mulu]

If only they could govern competently.

Why would they? Even though they state it more or less indirect only, the G.O.P.s disdain for government is quite apparent.

Oh they like government well enough when it's criminalizing and prosecuting any behavior they think is against god's will.

[zicada]

If only they could govern competently.

Why would they? Even though they state it more or less indirect only, the G.O.P.s disdain for government is quite apparent.

Oh they like government well enough when it's criminalizing and prosecuting any behavior they think is against god's will.

I believe Veilan is referring to ownership of means of production, not legislature. There's more than 1 axis on the political map you know.

[Mulu]

I believe Veilan is referring to ownership of means of production, not legislature. There's more than 1 axis on the political map you know.

Well, your comment doesn't make a lot of sense in our system of government, outside of privatizing, but most of our production is in private industry. The GOP dislikes regulations of any sort over that private industry, regulations being a form of legislation (rulemaking and enforcement, done pursuant to statute), thinks money put into government agencies in general is a waste, unless it's NASA attempting to go back to the moon because that was "cool," wants to voucher government social programs to private, preferably religious, entities rather than have things like guaranteed public education, and in general is for dismantling the federal and state governments other than the military and law enforcement related programs, hence my comment. They like government when it's pursuing their social or foreign goals, otherwise they'd prefer to just let business and churches do whatever they want, no matter how unwise or oppressive.

Then Katrina came along and showed that some governmental functions are kinda important after all. Still, they bang the "government is bad" drum as much as possible, even though under Bush the federal government actually grew, not only in size but in scope. So it really ends up being another example of the GOP saying one thing, shrink the government, and doing the opposite, expand the government.

The federal government actually shrunk under Clinton, at his urging.

Really, the more you look at the platforms, the less sense they make....

[White Warlock]

Okay, my recommendation, to Cipher and others, is to watch the upcoming Presidential and Vice Presidential debates. I'm sure they will be enlightening and will demonstrate just who knows not only the issues, but the means to address those issues.

It is not the responsibility of the President to do all the work, but to understand what work needs to be done, to ensure he positions qualified people to do that work, and the ability to remove people who fail to adequately perform that work. The Democrats repeatedly demonstrated a far higher level of expertise in health care and economics than the Republicans (see my earlier graph presentations). These are two of the biggest internal issues facing the U.S.

So Cipher, it's not merely about Obama, but about the army behind him. In contrast, what sort of army is behind McCain?

[ç i p h é r]

I'm not young. Don't patronize me.

I know you're not young, but such offhand dismissal of experience amounts to the same level of reasoning that's behind adolescent idealism.

I understand the value of experience very well, and I also understand that not all experience is created equal.

And on that point I absolutely agree. Thus, experience matters.

The devil is in the details. If you have a decent logical framework for putting together the details that you don't already know, you can learn on the job and still ultimately have the capability to function as "the decider".

This is a round-about way of saying that he's going to learn through trial and error.

The renegade side of McCain, which does admittedly appeal to me, also happens to be symptomatic in him of reliance on gut instinct. He may have had more exposure to the details than Obama as a result of having a quarter-century life "experience" advantage, but the policy conclusions he comes up with still end up as the same standard republican fare we've been living with for 8 years.

The issues are certainly legitimate. But can you be more specific about the conclusions you're referring to and what you consider to be "standard republican fare"? The only thing that has been standard republican fare over the past 8 years, in my estimation, has been the tax policy, which has been vital to the economy. Apart from that, Bush has deviated greatly from core conservative beliefs. This is true on foreign policy (preemptive war, nation building), on immigration policy (open borders, amnesty), and most certainly on spending (ginormous government). On none of these major policy matters is he even remotely conservative, ironically.

His experience seems to count for little beyond a strong party affiliation.

Are you implying that he tows the party line? If so, how do you square that with your perception of him as a renegade? How can one be both a renegade and a party loyalist?

Given how critical conservatives have been of McCain, I don't think we really need to parse the record to believe he's not the prototypical Republican. Limbaugh, Hannity, Ingraham, Dobson and many others have been so negative on him up until the Palin nomination. And how many conservatives do you know who approve of Joe Lieberman (who remember was Gore's VP nominee 8 short years ago), the guy most pundits believe was McCain's first choice for VP?

Palin, I don't believe she has either intellectual framework or details. In fact, I kind of feel sorry for her...this supposedly independent woman who is in fact little more than the stereotepical lipstick with a penchant for hiring friends and firing enemies.

Setting aside the sexist remark, what leads you to believe that she lacks an intellectual framework? Is it because you disagree with her views? Or is it because she hasn't descended from the halls of academia to rescue us ordinary folk, that she is instead the embodiment of "every [wo]man"? She is clearly of the people, but so are you and so am I, and I'm quite sure there is an intellectual framework here.

Frankly, I think she deserves more than two weeks to introduce herself to the public before we draw any judgments of her. There's no reason to make up your mind in September when you don't have to vote until November. That ought to be enough time for her to clearly demonstrate whether she can in fact deal with issues on the national stage. In any event, as you quite rightly stated, this is not a contest between Obama and Palin but Obama and McCain.

[ç i p h é r]

I'll be watching the debates. No worries.

It is not the responsibility of the President to do all the work, but to understand what work needs to be done, to ensure he positions qualified people to do that work, and the ability to remove people who fail to adequately perform that work.

Damn right.

The Democrats repeatedly demonstrated a far higher level of expertise in health care and economics than the Republicans (see my earlier graph presentations). These are two of the biggest internal issues facing the U.S.

Wait, what? How so? The policies are night and day, but which is "better" depends on your point of view. Since we are generalizing though:

Democrats favor nationalized health care, Republicans favor privatized.
Democrats favor higher taxes, Republicans favor lower taxes.
Democrats favor "bottom up" economic stimulus, Republicans favor "top down".
Democrats favor government entitlement programs (social security, medicare, etc), Republicans favor free market solutions.

So Cipher, it's not merely about Obama, but about the army behind him. In contrast, what sort of army is behind McCain?

Who does Obama have on his army? I really have no idea who McCain will appoint, but I'm quite sure that a McCain administration will have broad political representation.

[White Warlock]

Frankly, I think she deserves more than two weeks to introduce herself to the public before we draw any judgments of her. There's no reason to make up your mind in September when you don't have to vote until November. That ought to be enough time for her to clearly demonstrate whether she can in fact deal with issues on the national stage. In any event, as you quite rightly stated, this is not a contest between Obama and Palin but Obama and McCain.

Frankly, I think she's been in the Alaskan public eye for more than two weeks, just not in the "National" public eye. That said, we can look at her record and see she's very much not a good candidate for being in the Executive Office.

Seriously, you want me to break it down any more than I've done in all the various posts I've made in off topic? Do you want me to consolidate them all into one big post? There is plenty of evidence she is serious trouble for America.

Oh, and Cipher, the reason people, and the media, aren't giving Biden as much attention is because there's really not much argument about his qualifications and he's been in the "National" public eye for decades.

[ç i p h é r]

No, it would be analogous to claiming that a professor of business at a prestigious institution who had also run several smaller businesses and served on the board of the trillion dollar multi-national corporation could.

Well at least now you're admitting that experience does matter. "Simply by virtue of being a Constitutional Law professor" was how you previously put it.

We're making progress.

How would you know, you've never done either. I've at least done one.

Because the constitution isn't an executive instruction manual. It's a framework for our laws. If it were so explicit as to forfeit experience and judgment, why...we could just make the presidency a software program.

Run president.exe.

He still can't respond well to questions he's never heard before.

Example please.

Watch the saddleback debate:

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08 ... nnSTCVideo

He struggles mightily in places, and those were just harmless questions. In the most recent crisis, Russia's invasion of Georgia, how many times did he change his position? The position he chose isn't so much of a concern to me, but rather his indecisiveness and uncertainty of the right course of action. That isn't reassuring. In retrospect, Hillary may not have been that far off the mark in her 3am crisis readiness ad. Is this guy ready to deal with an international crisis?

And I have news for you, they were in no way responsible for the 9/11 attack. They are a new group, a franchise if you will of the original Al Qaida. I have more news for you, invading and occupying Iraq created them.

No disagreement there, but nobody was arguing or suggesting otherwise. He was blasting Gov Palin for saying that our enemies are in Iraq, and they are, regardless of how or why they are there now.

His experience is nearly identical to Abraham Lincoln's at the time, with the addition of being a Constitutional Law professor. More importantly, he gets it. There's a reason that highly educated people tend to favor Obama as a candidate, he actually knows what he is talking about, unlike even McCain when the issue is anything other than war or campaign finance reform. McCain has his areas of expertise, but has too many gaps on very important issues like the economy, plus he has completely sold out to the religious fundamentalists who want to turn the clock back a century. Sure, he can hire economists, but ultimately he's the one who makes the call.

Well I hate to burst your bubble, but:

1. The world is a very different place in 2008 than it was in 1809. If you've got to go back 200 years to find someone with the same credentials, you really don't have the qualifications.
2. I know plenty of highly educated people who are Republicans. You really love to look down your nose at people, but the Democrats have their "ignoramuses" too. There are lots of poor folk in both parties, but there are probably more rich folk in the Republican party. And rich people are neither stupid nor uneducated.
3. Obama doesn't claim to be an expert on the economy. He has said so himself and pointed out that he'll appoint experts to advise him on economic policy. And it only makes sense. He's a constitutional lawyer, not an economist.

Also, your characterization of the GOP as some kind of monolithic bloc is once again demonstrative of your willingness to misuse/distort information to suit your ends. You know it's not true. These intentional misstatements are meant to simply feed on the mischaracterization of the GOP as "everything evil and hypocritical". There is plenty of abuse and hypocrisy on the left as well. These things are not borne of a particular political ideology, but rather of personal character flaws in individuals, Democrat or Republican or Independent.

[ç i p h é r]

I appreciate your point of view WW, but whatever we think of Palin, the choice still comes down to Obama or McCain. I'm not voting for Biden or Palin, so the discussion, while interesting, is largely academic.