Yes, pushing the point that McCain is on the edge of that 6 foot hole in the ground. I wonder if they picked out his coffin? lol
I'm not saying that to be flippant. I'm just saying that any candidate in the final election better have a grasp and be prepared to discuss the Supreme Court.
__________________
There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Chuck Norris lives in Houston.
Either the United States will destroy ignorance, or ignorance will destroy the United States. – W.E.B. DuBois
I'm not saying that to be flippant. I'm just saying that any candidate in the final election better have a grasp and be prepared to discuss the Supreme Court.
No a candidate should be able to discuss policy not the intricacies of a Supreme Court decision. Obama and his wife, both attorney's, have botched comments on Constitutional Law.
__________________
"Beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow." ~Aesop
I'm not saying that to be flippant. I'm just saying that any candidate in the final election better have a grasp and be prepared to discuss the Supreme Court.
I didn't take your comments in that way, Stew. You are never rude, at least, I don't detect that from you.
They are just pushing this point in a repititious form in order to keep that in the forefront of every mind.
No matter that Reagan was older during the last term of his Presidency.
If she has been Mayor and Governor of a state, she is qualified to be VP. Reagan didn't have any more experience in that area than she did. She is still dealing with all the same issues of any other mayor. The larger the city, the more employees hired to take care of other functions. Bottom line, they all handle the same issues.
No a candidate should be able to discuss policy not the intricacies of a Supreme Court decision. Obama and his wife, both attorney's, have botched comments on Constitutional Law.
Baron, I was just responding specifically to your question as to why she would ask whether she saw a right to privacy in the Consitution. I don't think that that is an intricacy that one would need a law degree to discuss if they are running for office on that level. Every candidate on either ticket has had botched answers and gaffes that are down right scary to me. That was not my point.
__________________
There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Chuck Norris lives in Houston.
Either the United States will destroy ignorance, or ignorance will destroy the United States. – W.E.B. DuBois
I didn't take your comments in that way, Stew. You are never rude, at least, I don't detect that from you.
They are just pushing this point in a repititious form in order to keep that in the forefront of every mind.
No matter that Reagan was older during the last term of his Presidency.
If she has been Mayor and Governor of a state, she is qualified to be VP. Reagan didn't have any more experience in that area than she did. She is still dealing with all the same issues of any other mayor. The larger the city, the more employees hired to take care of other functions. Bottom line, they all handle the same issues.
PO, I don't want to rehash the details of her mayorship and her governorship. Let me just say that you can in no way compare her scope to California's. In her city, she was not even responsible for the education or hospital administration...two of the major areas that many mayors deal with. I would honestly not even mention that mayorship in discussing qualifications to be the next VP or President.
__________________
There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Chuck Norris lives in Houston.
Either the United States will destroy ignorance, or ignorance will destroy the United States. – W.E.B. DuBois
Baron, I was just responding specifically to your question as to why she would ask whether she saw a right to privacy in the Consitution. I don't think that that is an intricacy that one would need a law degree to discuss if they are running for office on that level. Every candidate on either ticket has had botched answers and gaffes that are down right scary to me. That was not my point.
Asking about a right to privacy (apparently in Couric's mind this only applies to abortion) was an attempt to make her look stupid.
Lets see big time constitutional lawyer Obama's response to the question from Rick Warren about a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman Obama responds with no "because historically, we have not defined marriage in our Constitution." HELLLOOO that's why we have amendments because it is not addressed in the constitution.
__________________
"Beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow." ~Aesop
Linear Mode
