-
Website
http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle -
Original page
http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/09/16/qualifications-and-sarah-palins-crazy-politics/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
Also, the "don't know" factor you cite is a big one. It's clear that McCain knows precious little more about Palin than you or I do. I agree with you on the "qualifications" point, but usually one element of being "qualified" is that folks have some sense of who you are, what you stand for, and what you believe. All of that is still essentially known about Palin at this point.
Second, this post is spot on. I have two quibbles, though. Re Palin - As someone who followed her career long before anyone knew who she was, I actually think she has a lot to recommend her as a real reformer. I am not claiming sainthood for her or anything like that, but Alaskans are appreciative of her results in the same way Virginians were of Mark Warner's. They are both political oddities in that they actually got some things done. Besides, I'd take anybody over the current crop in Washington in either party. Re McCain - while I think you are correct in your assessment, I am voting for him anyway (albeit reluctantly).
I was upset when Republicans won both the White House and Congress in 2000. I knew it would be a disaster and I said so at the time; I feel vindicated today. I vowed to always vote for the presidential candidate of the party least likely to control Congress.
I am always surprised no one really talks about this.
My nomination for Tyler's best sentence of the day.
In that sense, Obama is very nearly an explicit socialist. Hardly comforting and yet shockingly not that far removed from the atrocious John McCain.
Sarah Palin's political ideology is unclear and that is what I find makes her unqualified to be a vice-president. That, to me, is the only purpose that governing experience actually has - it allows the voter to gain a sense as to the political goals and values of a politician. Isn't that more relevant and consequential than temperament?
Not to mention his New Deal lust and more frighteningly, his "social justice" vision of government. Recall how closely he worked with ACORN and Clinton empowered CRA update.
That might not quite be Marx's vision but it is the product of Obama's fundamental disregard for private property rights. Once those go, then socialism isn't that far removed. So, while it may be a bit of hperbole to call him a socialist, it isn't so far removed from the truth that it warrants a dismissive reply.
That being said, for an empty shirt like GWB, the advisors are of huge concern but for a man like Sen. Obama, it matters little to me. He has a vision of the world and it's that vision that troubles me...
As for the socialism angle, I'm still waiting to hear Obama call for nationalizing GM. It's not like they could get a whole lot worse, right?
I very much enjly your posts, but have to disagree with this one. What knowledge do you have about Obama not being on the far left? Has he ever championed anything in the Illinois Senate or US Senate that would shrink govt, that promoted capitalism? Am I just being overcome by soundbites or is he not one of the 2 or 3 most left-wing senators?
You say he is a man of remarkable competence. But what has he actually achieved besides the next highest office? Can you please elaborate (if you have the time) on what information led you to these conclusions?
Regards
WJ
Obama has managed a pretty effective presidential campaign, and that's no small executive feat.
But, the fact that he may be a competent executive and successful at achieving his goals seems to be a bad thing to those of us who disapprove of many of his goals.
So, I agree with Mansterdad above and will be rooting for gridlock.
I'd rather see McCain fail to achieve his goals than see Obama succeed with his.
Thank you for your comment. I certainly will not disagree with your opinion that Obama has run an effective presidential campaign. It just seems a little bit of circular reasoning to say running for president makes you capable of being president.
I still wonder what Obama has actually accomplished that would make him be a man of remarkable competence. Making to a US Senator is no trivial matter obviously, but it just doesn't seem as that is achieving something besides a promotion. I wonder what he has done to deserve promotion.
Finally, am I wrong in my opinion that his previous positions and votes make him one of the 2 or 3 most liberal US Senators?
Regards,
WJ
I think you need to be able to convince a plurality of people (given the electoral system, etc.) that they can be more comfortable (or less uncomfortable) with you as cheif executive. I don't really think that there's any list of qualifications that are necessary and sufficient to guarantee a qualified president.
As for Obama's liberalness...I think that there are various organizations that rank them differently, based on differently chosen key votes. I don't think there's a definitive ranking, but it's probably fair to say that he's among the most left-liberal in the Senate.
But, as Will indicates, that doesn't make him a socialist. Just an advocate of pretty bad policies.
McCain is also an advocate of pretty bad policies, and whether he's worse depends on how you rank the differences.
Well, exactly. And Sarah Palin is as much part of that equation as anyone else. Her speeches have been red meat for conservative audiences, but also deliberately tweaked liberals/dems to get under their skins. They, in turn, react by finding anything and everything to throw back at her. And yes, they play the same game. It's a little disingenuous to pull one politician out of the mix and cry foul or sexism or whatever. They're all part of the same vicious cycle. They know exactly what they're doing. None of this is to excuse any of it, but what do you expect? I'd love to see a different game, say what Obama started out as, but I'm not holding my breath.
Seriously. If there's a retard olympics, you come in last.
I'm a libertarian who'll vote for a socialist!
Those degrees from TTT have served you well.
See here as well for an excellent series of articles published at Investors Business Daily. High-toned Rawlsekian analysis it is not. Just dirty unvarnished facts, but valuable nonetheless: The Audacity of Socialism: a Series: http://www.ibdeditorials.com/series8.aspx
But this makes Obama just as much of a socialist as McCain, in which case calling Obama a socialist as a reason to vote for McCain is simply absurd. I don't have a problem with consistent libertarians who refuse to vote for either major party candidate calling Obama a socialist; I do have a problem with prospective Republican voters doing so.
Be that as it may, McCain's "soul" and disposition is of a conservative sort -- despite how "ungrounded" it may be in many respects -- and so I'm quite confident he'd be far more chary than, say, Obama, in how far he's willing to push that socialization of rights (confiscatory levels of taxation; appointing jurists who would further implement international law into the Constitution; the withering away of our national sovereignty, etc.). But, yes, I think you're right in principle -- there's no formal reason why McCain can't go whole-hog and be as much of a profligate, reckless jackass as Obama and his assorted pseudo-Marxist phucks.