Colin Powell is no Republican

[chaotic_resolve]

Originally Posted by Ferd

Check the congressional record. we heard a steady drumbeat from every major liberal in congress. and no, I was not refering to Barak Obama's uncalled for comments about Afghanistan. I was talking about that great American hero John Mertha.

Okay, the subject isn't John Murtha. John Murtha also called PA residents racists, then clarified his remarks by saying they're "really redneck." He also accused Marines of killing civilians and has been fighting a lawsuit for defamation.

You were making it seem as though it was Obama who made these statements.

Also, waiting on any record of anyone, including Obama who said "we lost" the war in Iraq. I've seen Senator Reids remarks on the "surge failed," however I haven't seen anything in regards to "we lost."

Any comment on McCain's uncalled for statements about our troops killing civilians during the Balkan war? It's funny, the silence on this is incredible compared to the furor over Obama's same comments about the Iraq war. If you're going to knock Obama over his comments, you'd better do the same with McCain. The comments are almost exactly the same.

Also, to clarify my remarks on Obama's experience vs Palin's...experience as either House Representative or Senator is far more broad than that of Governor of a state. There are issues, foreign and domestic, that they deal with that Governor's will never deal with. Just check out Palin's interviews or listen to speeches and you'll see she has embarrassingly little knowledge of foreign or even domestic issues that don't deal with Alaska. Her speeches, interviews and debate content is long on cute little winks and soundbytes, but dreadfully shallow on any real substance.

I know McCain and the Republican Party like to throw out the "143 days" or whatever about Obama. But the fact is, even with that little amount of time, he has more exposure to issues than what Palin has had in her 2 years.

Originally Posted by StMark

I wonder why CP is bitter towards his own party???

Why is he apart of a party he hates?

If I hated the Republicans, I'd switch parties

It's not that Powell is bitter or ~hates~ the Republicans, per se. But I agree he should change his status to Independent, if anything. I don't hate the Republican party, but I'm not happy with what they've become the past few years. The party has changed, and not for the better.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by tstew

I went back and reread the link. TR was actually saying that the 143 day figure was accurate and was using this link as a source. I have talked to TR enough to know that he is better than that ridiculous stat. I saw the table in the beginning that was comparing days to years and turned away. Since TR was using this to verify his post, I figured that they were using that table as a good measure.
Let me just remind you that even during his candidacy he voted more than enough to be graded by the Washington Journal and of course we have already discussed this and the fact that McCain didn't. I'm just saying that if we are going to acknowledge his votes during his candidacy enough to grade him as the most liberal Senator, we should at least acknowledge them enough to give him credit for working.

I had read the 143 day figure in many places before coming across the factcheck.org article. Indeed they do dismiss the figure, and as as I've conceded above, the number is likely inaccurate.

However, going back to what I said previously.... even if you were to be generous and give him 304 days up to that point in time, as some do, it's still less working days than Palin spent working as Governor.

(The Senate is known to be "out of session" a lot more than State Governors are. And Governors are often known to work 6 day weeks at least. )

Whatever the exact number is for each of these two people, it is incorrect for people to minimize brush aside Palin's executive experience as Governor vs Obama serving as 1 in 100 senators. One might argue one way or the other, but in many ways, the argument could come down to a draw...they both have relatively thin resumes... in which case it's still bad for Obama's cause, because Palin is a VP candidate, while Obama is the Presidential candidate. So his thin resume could more consequential to our nation, beginning Jan 20th 2009.

[tstew]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

If you feel the stat is ridiculous, then please tell us why.
I have no problem being corrected. If you have a more accurate number for us, feel free to share.

Keep in mind, however, it doesnt change the underlying point being made.

-------
(In fairness, I'll say I've also read that 143 may be the number of times the senate met while he was serving as senator, or the number of days he was on the senate floor. The numbers I've seen seem to vary and its not easy to pin down the exact number right now.)

But it doesnt change the underlying point here.... Even if if you make the case that Obama worked more than 143 days in the Senate [which he may indeed have], he has been on the campaign trail almost non-stop since early 2007... Meanwhile Palin, who took over as governor in December 2006, worked a solid 20 months governing Alaska up to the time McCain picked her 2 months ago.

Thus the key argument remains. Palin has spent more time of hands-on governance in her post than Obama has spent in the senate doing his senatorial duties. Thus, in my view, those who try to minimize Palin's experience level, while touting Obama's time of "federal senatorial experience" are kidding themselves.

And of course, as a senator you have 99 other people helping to make decisions. A governor has no such luxury. The level of responsibility and accountability is much greater as a governor.

TR, to be honest with you, I almost hate coming here to the election section now because without fail I find myself seemingly happen to "defend" Barack Obama. The truth of the matter is that I cannot stand propaganda, political rhetoric, and some of the blatant dishonesty that seems to be such a part of our political system...not to mention the blind partisanship that I love so much.

If I remember correctly, the US Senate meets well in excess of 100 days per year. Obama is also part of several Senate SubCommittees. In addition to this US Senators are involved in a lot of things during the entire year...particularly the rising or prominent ones. I would no more measure a US Senator's experience in "working days" than I would a pastor's by giving him credit for 2 days worth of experience per week.
At the very least if you are going to measure experience in "working days" you at least have to be consistent. When I clicked the link and saw Obama's experience measured in "working days" and McCain's in total years, I had pretty much seen all I cared to see from that particular source.
For the life of me I don't see where the 143 days comes from. I have read 173 days and I don't know where that comes from either.
The bottom line like I said earlier to Ferd is that during the last measure of voting during the candidacy of Obama, he did vote more than enough to be graded by the Washington Journal and be labeled. It was McCain who did not. The point is that you cannot recognize his voting during the candidacy enough to criticize his votes but not enough to give him credit for working. You cannot both be the most liberal voter in 2007 and be "on the campaign trail almost non-stop since early 2007" and therefore unable to get credit for working and voting.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by tstew

If I remember correctly, the US Senate meets well in excess of 100 days per year. Obama is also part of several Senate SubCommittees. In addition to this US Senators are involved in a lot of things during the entire year...particularly the rising or prominent ones. I would no more measure a US Senator's experience in "working days" than I would a pastor's by giving him credit for 2 days worth of experience per week.
At the very least if you are going to measure experience in "working days" you at least have to be consistent. When I clicked the link and saw Obama's experience measured in "working days" and McCain's in total years, I had pretty much seen all I cared to see from that particular source.
For the life of me I don't see where the 143 days comes from. I have read 173 days and I don't know where that comes from either.

Ok fine. I'm not even going to nitpick over how many days it was. That by itself was never my central point.

Not to belabor the point but, even using your estimate that the senate meets easily 100+ days a year, (and the whole "working days" measurement is quite imprecise either way)...

...Governors of every state are in constant meetings and consultations with multiple heads of agencies, cabinet members, other appointees, state legislative leaders, etc, to the extent that it dwarfs the workload and accountabilty level of practically any senator, especially a junior senator,as Obama was.

Any fair minded view of this should tell us that Obama's experience level cannot properly be viewed as being vastly superior to Sarah Palin's. But this is how many in the media and the political left wish to portray it, while seemingly oblivious to the proverbial elephant in the room here... which is, that they're comparing the GOP's #2 person, to the Democrats' NUMBER ONE person on the ticket.

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by tstew

I went back and reread the link. TR was actually saying that the 143 day figure was accurate and was using this link as a source. I have talked to TR enough to know that he is better than that ridiculous stat. I saw the table in the beginning that was comparing days to years and turned away. Since TR was using this to verify his post, I figured that they were using that table as a good measure.
Let me just remind you that even during his candidacy he voted more than enough to be graded by the Washington Journal and of course we have already discussed this and the fact that McCain didn't. I'm just saying that if we are going to acknowledge his votes during his candidacy enough to grade him as the most liberal Senator, we should at least acknowledge them enough to give him credit for working.

I take no issue with what youve said here. Clearly Barak Obama was a full time senator for two years. I aint that great with math even if my daddy was a math teacher, but by my recolection that should push him over 700 days?

Does that work for you?

[tstew]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

Ok fine. I'm not even going to nitpick over how many days it was. That by itself was never my central point.

Not to belabor the point but, even using your estimate that the senate meets easily 100+ days a year, (and the whole "working days" measurement is quite imprecise either way)...

...Governors of every state are in constant meetings and consultations with multiple heads of agencies, cabinet members, other appointees, state legislative leaders, etc, to the extent that it dwarfs the workload and accountabilty level of practically any senator, especially a junior senator,as Obama was.

Any fair minded view of this should tell us that Obama's experience level cannot properly be viewed as being vastly superior to Sarah Palin's. But this is how many in the media and the political left wish to portray it, while seemingly oblivious to the proverbial elephant in the room here... which is, that they're comparing the GOP's #2 person, to the Democrats' NUMBER ONE person on the ticket.

TR, that is a different conversation. I was not involved in the conversation comparing the their experiences and the whole debate of gubernatorial experience vs. US Congressional experience.

[tstew]

Originally Posted by Ferd

I take no issue with what youve said here. Clearly Barak Obama was a full time senator for two years. I aint that great with math even if my daddy was a math teacher, but by my recolection that should push him over 700 days?

Does that work for you?

It almost works for me. I don't see how being elected in 2004 equates to 2 years of experience, but we are getting closer to one another

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by chaotic_resolve

Okay, the subject isn't John Murtha. John Murtha also called PA residents racists, then clarified his remarks by saying they're "really redneck." He also accused Marines of killing civilians and has been fighting a lawsuit for defamation.

You were making it seem as though it was Obama who made these statements.

Also, waiting on any record of anyone, including Obama who said "we lost" the war in Iraq. I've seen Senator Reids remarks on the "surge failed," however I haven't seen anything in regards to "we lost."

Any comment on McCain's uncalled for statements about our troops killing civilians during the Balkan war? It's funny, the silence on this is incredible compared to the furor over Obama's same comments about the Iraq war. If you're going to knock Obama over his comments, you'd better do the same with McCain. The comments are almost exactly the same.

Also, to clarify my remarks on Obama's experience vs Palin's...experience as either House Representative or Senator is far more broad than that of Governor of a state. There are issues, foreign and domestic, that they deal with that Governor's will never deal with. Just check out Palin's interviews or listen to speeches and you'll see she has embarrassingly little knowledge of foreign or even domestic issues that don't deal with Alaska. Her speeches, interviews and debate content is long on cute little winks and soundbytes, but dreadfully shallow on any real substance.

I know McCain and the Republican Party like to throw out the "143 days" or whatever about Obama. But the fact is, even with that little amount of time, he has more exposure to issues than what Palin has had in her 2 years.



It's not that Powell is bitter or ~hates~ the Republicans, per se. But I agree he should change his status to Independent, if anything. I don't hate the Republican party, but I'm not happy with what they've become the past few years. The party has changed, and not for the better.

Frist I was talking about democrats in congress in general... of which Barak Obama is one. He certainly didnt distance himself from any of his collegues. in fact if anything he ran to their left.

Secondly McCain was dealing directly with Clintons policy that left American Pilots droping bombs with no American boots on the ground to insure what was happening. (you might recall that McCain has some experience with American Pilots and what they are capable of.) McCain was advocating for troops to be brought in.

very different scenario.

and lastly with Mr. Landry's help I think I have demonstraited exactly how the American public feels about the experience debate between Senators and Governors. On that point my friend you lose.

As a people, we collectively hold the opinion that Governors are better suited to be president than are senators or House members. By a very very wide margine.


As for Palin's substance that is certainly a matter of debate. We can review Barak Obamas early comments and debate missteps. those dont seem to cause you any concern now do they?

(Levi is standing over my shoulder wanting me to "do the T" so....tttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt tttttttttttttttttttttttt)

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by tstew

It almost works for me. I don't see how being elected in 2004 equates to 2 years of experience, but we are getting closer to one another

lets see... 2004, senator 2005 senator 2006 sen... no wait.... uhm full time candidate for President of the united states....


there you have it. Thats whats on my score card... but you are certainly entitled to have a different view so long as you dont tell me he is a two term senator... LOL!

[tstew]

Originally Posted by Ferd

lets see... 2004, senator 2005 senator 2006 sen... no wait.... uhm full time candidate for President of the united states....


there you have it. Thats whats on my score card... but you are certainly entitled to have a different view so long as you dont tell me he is a two term senator... LOL!

Ferd, did you just completely disregard my posts about the fact that everybody has been calling him the most liberal Senator based on his voting in 2007? He has been active in the current Senate (more than enough to be graded) and it was McCain who did not vote enough to be registered. You can't count his votes in 2007 to label him as the most liberal, but then not count 2007 as a working year.