Stew, I saw several Rove interviews where he made those comments about Kane. in all instances the fact that Obama has very little experience was part of the reason why Kane would be such a political pick.
McCain doesnt have that problem. Was Palin a political pick? sure. but McCain having vastly more experience can do that without it jepordizing the nation. Obama did not have that wiggle room.
and NO that isnt spin. that is fact.
Ferd, did you watch the video I posted? Did you here his statement at the end?. The whole crux of his argument was that the selection of Kaine would have been a political selection that would reflect that Obama was not asking "is this person capable of being the President of the United States"...those were his exact words. His reasoning for saying that this was not true of Kaine was very clear. And in those exact same areas, Palin is less qualified according to his reasoning.
I am not attempting to add anymore to what he said. His assessment of the pick was very clear. You can find the rest of the interview on youtube.
__________________
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
tstew even though we dont agree, still respect you, just so you know, aint personal bro, dt
Of course, I do not take any of our conversations personally. I do not even feel like there really has been any personal attacks and I hope that noone here feels like I have attacked them personally. Ultimately, I am a bit frustrated by a lot of what I see and am really starting to see beyond some of the things that I have previously bought into.
I try to stay as respectful as I think we should as Christians and fellow Apostolics.
__________________
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
Of course, I do not take any of our conversations personally. I do not even feel like there really has been any personal attacks and I hope that noone here feels like I have attacked them personally. Ultimately, I am a bit frustrated by a lot of what I see and am really starting to see beyond some of the things that I have previously bought into.
I try to stay as respectful as I think we should as Christians and fellwo Apostolics.
amen bro, thanks, dt
__________________
A product of a pentecostal raisin, I am a hard man, just ask my children
The point I made - and the one you're trying to forget AND camoflauge by blowing smoke - is that you gave patently false information as fact.
"Every president since LBJ has been a governor."
This is what you said, isn't it?
Now, when at least four presidents since LBJ have NOT been governors, that shows how little research you do before slinging things out there you think proves your point.
Now, I couldn't care less as far as what you are trying to "prove" ... but since your assertion is that governors are more qualified than senators and the American people are smart to see that ...
... then if it applies to Obama/Palin - THEN it meant Clinton was more qualified than Dole.
Now if not ... why not?
Your entire line of reasoning here is laughable but THAT wasn't my point.
My point was ... like a lot of right wing reactionaries this election - you are hysterically throwing out patently false information to try and prove your points.
And that shoots your crediblitly to shreds.
And THAT point won't go away and you can just wrestle with it all you want to.
Uh ... I won't return the favor and ask if that makes you feel better because I'm sure you're feeling a bit queasy now.
Lets march down thru this. Not every president since LBJ was a gov. as I said. I was (as you so clearly point out I was wrong to say it).
You've assigned to me I was tossing out "patently false information" to prove a point. Tim, I may have been wrong and moving too fast to state it correctly, but the point I was trying to make, holds up based on the actual facts. I apologize for making error here.
I'm my mind I was thinking (and typing real fast) that when given a choice between a Gov. and a Senator going back at least as far as LBJ, (I should have stopped at carter) the American people have picked the gov.
but you completely missed the point. It isn't that Palin is MORE qualified than Obama. The point is that it is hypocrisy to suggest that Palin is LESS qualified than Obama because as Chaotic_resolve stated Senate experience trumps Gubernatorial experience.
having gotten my ear tweaked by the GREAT Tim Landry, I did a bit of looking into it..... and found even more information to support my premise. That being that the American people prefer Governors to Senators.
(actually there will be more later)
4 of the last 5 presidents have been Governors without having held any other political office of significance. George H. W. Bush is the only exception of the last 5 and he was Vice President at the time he was elected president. He was also Director of the CIA, Ambassador to the UN and Chief Liaison to China as well as being a member of the House of Representatives.
Additionally 8 U. S. Presidents have been governors having held no other major office. ONLY 1 man has become President of the United States having been a Senator and having held no other major office. That man is Warren G. Harding who was president in the 1920's for 2 years dying of a heart attack and being most known for the Teapot dome scandal.
John F. Kennedy was the only other President to be elected as a sitting Senator. However he served 3 terms as a member of the House of Representatives before becoming Senator.
So clearly the American people have historically considered Gubernatorial experience to be superior to Senatorial Experience
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
Ferd, did you watch the video I posted? Did you here his statement at the end?. The whole crux of his argument was that the selection of Kaine would have been a political selection that would reflect that Obama was not asking "is this person capable of being the President of the United States"...those were his exact words. His reasoning for saying that this was not true of Kaine was very clear. And in those exact same areas, Palin is less qualified according to his reasoning.
I am not attempting to add anymore to what he said. His assessment of the pick was very clear. You can find the rest of the interview on youtube.
Yes. i watched it, and i noticed that it was a chop of a longer interview with Rove. AND AND, I remember watching Rove several times on different talking head shows making essentially that same point. Only in those occasions, the fact that Obama was inexperienced was also part of Roves comments and thus part of the reasoning.
given what I know about what Rove said in other interviews, it seems to me that the clip you are leaning on lacks full context (on purpose).
Clearly Kane and Palin represent very similar situations... or as you point out dissimilar in that Kane has more experience as both Mayor of a biger city and Gov. for a longer period.
But the context is the experience of the PRESIDENTIAL candidate! George W. Bush could not have gotten away with picking a novice. Nor could Obama and neither did. But suggesting that McCain did something unheard of in picking Palin as the second on his ticket, or that Palin for McCain is the same as Kane for Obama isnt putting those actions in context.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
got it right that time ferd, the libs just love obama, the socialist, when he is done with them they can live on welfare, the real americans will still have to work to pay the bills, dt
well, thanks but lets be clear about Tim. He aint a wiled eyed lib. certainly not a socialist.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
More facts about who Americans elect President.
More Presidents have been Governors than Senators
More Presidents have been members of the House of Representatives than Senators
Every President that was first a Senator was also either a General, Vice President, Governor, Secretary of State, Or member of the House of Representatives, except 1
6 men have been Governor without holding any other previously mentioned office.
Only Abraham Lincoln served as only a member of the house or representatives with no other major office being held.
Franklin Pierce and John Kennedy were the only men to be president to have been both (but only) Senator and member of the House.
4 men have become president having been Generals but to have not held any other major office.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
George - as in curious
Linear Mode
