McCain said the only job of the VP is to attend State Funerals....

Correct me if I'm wrong, but JFK didn't have much, if any, executive experience either.

JFK was also more conservative on many issues (like taxes) than most republicans today.

 

Again, we see a comparison between the Dems #1 and the Reps #2... and yet we're supposed to be more nervous about the republican ticket than the dems??? I really don't get it.

 

I started a whole thread illustrating with actual facts--not mere opinions--that the wealthy pay double their share of the overall tax bill (19% vs. 39%) under conservative leadership than under liberal leadership, while those earning less than $40,000 a year pay less, and how tax revenues actually increase (as a result of growth and investment) as taxes are reduced, and yet we continue to hear how republicans are friends of the rich and enemies of the poor.

 

This is getting to be a pretty unfunny joke.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but JFK didn't have much, if any, executive experience either.

 

 

Abraham Lincoln had no executive experience, John Q. Adams had no executive experience, and neither did James Madison.

 

Surely to God you are not really comparing what we are seeing out of Barak Obama to some of the greatest American leaders of all time, experience or not. :creepy:

 

He does have some charisma, after that he's an empty shell. Not that Mccain is better, but neither one will ever have their face on Mt. Rushmore.

 

I have no experience, either, but I am no JFK. Guess I could be if I ran for president based on your statement.

 

Guess McCain fits the same bill as Obama, too.

I am saying she is the only one with experience.

Obama is not in the same air as the guys you mentioned. C'mon, now. That is one big stretch. Clinton (the Bill one) was closer to JFK than this guy.

Before becoming VP, Garret Hobart had never rose above the New Jersey legislature.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garret_A._Hobart

 

Kentuckian John C. Breckinridge had only served 4 years as a Congressman

before becoming VP at the age of 36.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Breckinridge

 

Spiro Agnew went from county executive to VP in 6 years.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiro_Agnew

 

Chester A. Arthur became VP without ever being a Congressman, Senator, or Governor.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chester_A._Arthur

I never said it couldn't be done. Interesting choices, though, for backing up how well people do when they don't have experience. Should've read a little more in the ol' Wikipedia as you picked them:

 

Hobart was a crony that basically did nothing, notable only for dying and getting Teddy Roosevelt into the VP office and eventually the Presidency.

 

Breckenridge went on to lead Confederate forces in the war and lose citizenship and went into exile.

 

Agnew was a tax fraud, bribery and conspiracy casualty.

 

Arthur created the civil service, and we have all been paying for that for years and years!

 

With the exception of Arthur, your man Barak seems like he may just fit in with the other bunch. A crony, a (perceived by some) traitor, and a con man/thief.:thumb: Go, Man, Go!:thumb:

With the exception of Arthur, your man Barak seems like he may just fit in with the other bunch. A crony, a (perceived by some) traitor, and a con man/thief.:thumb: Go, Man, Go!:thumb:

Too bad he's not running for VP instead of P. :lol:

Oh, if he wins we'll wish he had just ran for VP.

JFK was also more conservative on many issues (like taxes) than most republicans today.

 

Again, we see a comparison between the Dems #1 and the Reps #2... and yet we're supposed to be more nervous about the republican ticket than the dems??? I really don't get it.

I started a whole thread illustrating with actual facts--not mere opinions--that the wealthy pay double their share of the overall tax bill (19% vs. 39%) under conservative leadership than under liberal leadership, while those earning less than $40,000 a year pay less, and how tax revenues actually increase (as a result of growth and investment) as taxes are reduced, and yet we continue to hear how republicans are friends of the rich and enemies of the poor.

 

This is getting to be a pretty unfunny joke.

 

I think the point is that too many criticized Obama's "experience" and are now touting Palin as experienced...it seems to be...shall we say, a double standard?

Oh, if he wins we'll wish he had just ran for VP.

Judging from the ongoing comparisons of Obama's management skills versus Palin's... I'm not so sure he isn't already. :lol:

Your points (though perfectly valid) will carry no weight with the folks who have made up their mind that Palin's scant 20 months in significant elected office and education qualify her to step in and run the most powerful nation on earth. "Executive experience" is the buzzword you will hear, even though there is plenty of precedent for successful Commanders in Chief with zero "executive experience". I wonder how many U.S. Vice Presidents have been elected with such a thin resume as Palin.

As your question has already been answered by shooter, hopefully you will answer mine. How many Presidents have been elected with "such a thin resume" as Obama?

Surely to God you are not really comparing what we are seeing out of Barak Obama to some of the greatest American leaders of all time, experience or not. :creepy:

 

He does have some charisma, after that he's an empty shell. Not that Mccain is better, but neither one will ever have their face on Mt. Rushmore.

 

I have no experience, either, but I am no JFK. Guess I could be if I ran for president based on your statement.

 

Guess McCain fits the same bill as Obama, too.

I am saying she is the only one with experience.

Obama is not in the same air as the guys you mentioned. C'mon, now. That is one big stretch. Clinton (the Bill one) was closer to JFK than this guy.

 

 

Nope, as TB&G has stated, I am pointing out the hypocrisy that comes along with the Republican party.

 

Obama is near crucified for his "inexperience" but with Palin, we throw a nice word in front of it, "executive" and it's suddenly more meaningful than anyone else's experience.

 

I was simply pointing out, again, as has already been discussed, that a President does not need executive experience to be President. (though you wouldn't be able to tell with all the junk the conservatives are spouting)

 

It's getting ridiculous that every time I hear a conservative talk about Palin, they say "well she's got more executive experience than Obama and Biden combined."

 

Well hey, she's got more than McCain too. That was the point I was making. I'm not saying Obama is the next JFK, and I'm not comparing him to Lincoln or Adams or anyone of the like. I am pointing out how ridiculous it is that the Republicans spin her "experience" by calling it "executive experience" and then fail to mention that she also has more of this experience than McCain.

Nope, as TB&G has stated, I am pointing out the hypocrisy that comes along with the Republican party.

 

Obama is near crucified for his "inexperience" but Palin is cool, she's a "maverick."

 

I was simply pointing out, again, as has already been discussed, that a President does not need executive experience to be President. (though you wouldn't know so with all the junk the conservatives are pushing)

 

It's getting ridiculous that every time I hear a conservative talk about Palin, they say "well she's got more executive experience than Obama and Biden combined."

 

Well hey, she's got more than McCain too.

Regardless of how this election goes, Sarah Palin will be a force to be reckoned with in national politics for years to come. Democrats know it and that is why they attempt to belittle her by referring to her as a former small town mayor instead of giving her the respect commonly afforded to the governor of a state.

Here's my assessment.

 

Obama didn't have the screws to pick Hillary as his #2. From a popular vote standard, Hill would have brought the other half of the Dems to the clambake. The two of them would have been the most formidable front the Dems could have fielded. Obama, aware of his own inexperience didn't need a political tiger like Mr. Bill lurking in the wings. Maybe he was worried that Hillary would have become president before his calendar term expired. Whatever the reason, he figured there was no way McCain would deviate from the Republican stereotype of powerful white males in choosing his #2. So, Obama picks a minor Dem white dude to help him get the votes of more white dudes. Problem is, he picked a bloviating windbag with a 35 year record of poor judgment and reckless comments. Up steps McCain who picks a female go-getter more concerned with results than in forging friendly political alliances... a maverick. Basically, a feminine version of himself. If Palin were a pro-abortion liberal, the Dems wouldn't be able to sing her praises loudly enough as an example of what a woman can achieve. The fact she's a pro-life conservative violates everything the feminist movement is all about. The fact that she has more executive experience than the other three candidates combined is cause for fear for the two guys with whom she's not sharing the ticket.

 

Palin is a game changer. Roles have been reversed. Republicans are more progressive, more open-minded than anyone believed. If Palin is able to articulate herself clearly tonight and over the next few weeks this race is over right here and now.

 

I said it.

 

Take it to the bank.

 

If I'm wrong, I'll eat crow in November.

 

I'm buying turkey in anticipation of a victory Thanksgiving. :thumb:

Republicans are more progressive, more open-minded than anyone believed.

 

 

Lol

 

Why, because they picked a woman as VP?

:lol:

 

Wow, let me welcome the Republican party to the year 2008.

Here's my assessment.

 

Obama didn't have the screws to pick Hillary as his #2. From a popular vote standard, Hill would have brought the other half of the Dems to the clambake. The two of them would have been the most formidable front the Dems could have fielded. Obama, aware of his own inexperience didn't need a political tiger like Mr. Bill lurking in the wings. Maybe he was worried that Hillary would have become president before his calendar term expired. Whatever the reason, he figured there was no way McCain would deviate from the Republican stereotype of powerful white males in choosing his #2. So, Obama picks a minor Dem white dude to help him get the votes of more white dudes. Problem is, he picked a bloviating windbag with a 35 year record of poor judgment and reckless comments. Up steps McCain who picks a female go-getter more concerned with results than in forging friendly political alliances... a maverick. Basically, a feminine version of himself. If Palin were a pro-abortion liberal, the Dems wouldn't be able to sing her praises loudly enough as an example of what a woman can achieve. The fact she's a pro-life conservative violates everything the feminist movement is all about. The fact that she has more executive experience than the other three candidates combined is cause for fear for the two guys with whom she's not sharing the ticket.

 

Palin is a game changer. Roles have been reversed. Republicans are more progressive, more open-minded than anyone believed. If Palin is able to articulate herself clearly tonight and over the next few weeks this race is over right here and now.

 

I said it.

 

Take it to the bank.

 

If I'm wrong, I'll eat crow in November.

 

I'm buying turkey in anticipation of a victory Thanksgiving. :thumb:

:thumb: I agree. If Palin is able to convince voters that she is at least as well qualified as Obama to be president, there is no way Obama can win. The Obama campaign has invited the comparison of credentials by their demeaning and sexist attacks on Palin.