Is Karl Rove running for President?

 

The analysts on Dem leaning channels have stated that Experience didn't matter than O put Biden on the ticket.

 

So, were they wrong when they said that O's lack of experience didn't matter?

 

I'll assume you're smarter than your first statement as to why this is an issue.

 

Experience is completely irrelevant in this thread. Its all about double standards. You know that had the shoe been on the LEFT foot in this that Aces et al would be all over it showing that OBAMA'S OWN PARTY said that choosing someone like this would be a mistake.

 

Surely you are able to see that, right?

I'll assume you're smarter than your first statement as to why this is an issue.

 

Experience is completely irrelevant in this thread. Its all about double standards. You know that had the shoe been on the LEFT foot in this that Aces et al would be all over it showing that OBAMA'S OWN PARTY said that choosing someone like this would be a mistake.

 

Surely you are able to see that, right?

 

And as I have pointed out and you did not refer to, THEY HAVE.

 

They went on and on that O's lack of experience was no issue.

And then he choose someone that was first elected to Congress when Palin was 8 to offset his lack of experience.

Maybe Rove thinks Palin was a bad pick.

Is Karl Rove running for President?

 

The analysts on Dem leaning channels have stated that Experience didn't matter than O put Biden on the ticket.

 

So, were they wrong when they said that O's lack of experience didn't matter?

Excellent points. :lol:

 

Of course the fact that liberals and Democratic political analysts argued that Obama's experience, which includes zero executive expreience and zero foreign policy experience, did not matter, but then praised the selection of Joe Biden to the ticket because of his foreign policy experience is irrelevant. Same shoe, different foot. :lol:

 

Obama lacks the experience to be president on "day one." McCain's running mate also lacks the experience to be president on day one but she is less likely to need that experience on day one.

 

With both a relatively inexperienced African-American man and a relatively inexperienced woman on the two tickets, maybe another tradition should be broken and the debate match-ups should be McCain vs. Biden and Obama vs. Palin. The Obama supporters seem to be more anxious to compare Obama's resume to Palin's than to the man he is running against. If that match-up is more to Obama's liking, let's see how they do in a debate against each other. Let's see if Obama is willing to debate Sara Palin "anytime, anywhere" because he obviously got a case of cold feet after issuing that challenge to John McCain.

I find it hard to believe that you guys don't see the point and I find it disingenuous. Karl Rove essentially said that Palin is a terrible pick. HE said she's not acceptable to be one step from the Presidency. HE said that being governor for less than 2 years in what essentially is a decent sized town DOES NOT qualify you to be one step from the Presidency. HE also said that McCain made a "political" choice instead of one that looks out for the country.

 

Surely that wasn't hard to digest but if it was I'm glad I'm here to help.

You are right that Rove said it was a horrible pick- I am no political expert but I disagree with him.

 

It fired up political junkies (like us) because she is so unique. It fired up Pro-Lifers because she embodies that idea. It (should) fire up the gun-owners and hunters because she is their Phoebe Cates. It fires up the fiscal conservatives because she cut spending, sold the governor's private jet on eBay, and is in favor of tax rebates not coupled with tax cuts. Heck- even though it irks us fiscal conservatives- she has the potential to fire up the people who blame Big Oil for all of the problems in this country because of her (cough ridiculous cough) proposal for windfall tax.

 

I have no allegiance to Rove, and hardly any to the GOP. I don't care what he says. This pick IS a political pick. Fortunately, Sarah Palin seems like the least political Politician ever. Pretty, young, down-to-earth, and a maverick.....coupled with the fact that (cross my fingers) she has no ties to terrorists, racists, and criminals, she is an unheard of in this political landscape.

Jack Kemp made the following point.

 

You can have all the experience in the world that qualifies you to be President. i.e. Joe Biden.

 

But if you are wrong on the issues the experience does not matter because you would lead this country down the wrong path.

 

O, does not have the experience nor is he right on the issues that are important to this country's future. He is the wrong choice on both accounts.

 

Palin, does not have the experience but she is right on the issues that are important to this country's future.

Jack Kemp made the following point.

 

You can have all the experience in the world that qualifies you to be President. i.e. Joe Biden.

 

But if you are wrong on the issues the experience does not matter because you would lead this country down the wrong path.

 

O, does not have the experience nor is he right on the issues that are important to this country's future. He is the wrong choice on both accounts.

 

Palin, does not have the experience but she is right on the issues that are important to this country's future.

 

I guess one's perspective on which is more qualified is skewed in what one thinks the issues are that are most important to this country's future.

I guess one's perspective on which is more qualified is skewed in what one thinks the issues are that are most important to this country's future.

 

Absolutely.

Is Karl Rove running for President?

 

The analysts on Dem leaning channels have stated that Experience didn't matter than O put Biden on the ticket.

 

So, were they wrong when they said that O's lack of experience didn't matter?

 

 

There is one critical difference here: Obama reached the nomination through the primary process, where 18 million voters decided he was the best candidate after seeing umpteen debates and after his background had been thoroughly examined. Palin was chosen by one person (a 72 year old candidate for president) and was not subject to the same comprehensive review by the voters. While one could easily use the term gimmicky to describe Palin's selection, no one can credibly claim that someone can make it through the grueling and thorough primary process without the substance to be President.

 

The voters have spoken that they are comfortable with Obama's experience because they have seen enough of him to have that confidence. What have the voters (or John McCain, for that matter) seen of Sarah Palin to give them the confidence that she is ready to be president?

But he's undecided...

 

:lol: Yeah, and I'm voting for Obama....:lol:

:lol: Yeah, and I'm voting for Obama....:lol:

In 2012 I plan to be an undecided moderate until election day.

There is one critical difference here: Obama reached the nomination through the primary process, where 18 million voters decided he was the best candidate after seeing umpteen debates and after his background had been thoroughly examined.

Or 18 million voters decided he was the lesser of two evils.

 

...no one can credibly claim that someone can make it through the grueling and thorough primary process without the substance to be President.

One did.

There is one critical difference here: Obama reached the nomination through the primary process, where 18 million voters decided he was the best candidate after seeing umpteen debates and after his background had been thoroughly examined.

 

Some did. But a large portion were people who were simply "sick of the Clintons".

Or 18 million voters decided he was the lesser of two evils.

 

How many Democratic candidates threw their hats in the ring for the primary? A heck of a lot more than just two. The point is that Obama emerged from the election process after being considered by millions of voters over many months of campaigning and debates. He wasn't just hand-picked by a single person who evidently values political advantage over Presidential qualifications.

I must give Aces and LBBC a lot of credit. They have an indescribable skill of taking a thread off subject and regurgitating the same stuff over and over. Hats off to you guys.

 

However, you two have conveniently disregarded the actual freaking point. A KEY Republican is on record as saying that picking a small-town mayor is not good enough for the VP positon. He also said that picking such a candidate says that you're not concerned with "governing" and picking someone ready to step into the position.

 

So feel free to now resuming your rhetoric and disregarding the point of the thread. If that point is too hard to digest, I'll help out: The point of this thread is not to debate who has more experience. It is to point out the hypocrisy (proven by you two).