DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: ZoSo on August 30, 2008, 05:23:01 PM
-
A letter posted on Andrew Sullivans blog today:
I had been reluctant to acknowledge how flawed and dead the conservative movement has become; that's over now. No more excuses, no more clinging to old visions of rational discourse and principled debate. I really have witnessed the death of conservatism and its replacement by a kind of toxic babbitry which would be merely laughable or cringeworthy if it were not also so extraordinarily dangerous.
This election year has been a series of revelations and disillusionments--the crudely ugly tactics of Limbaugh and Hannity (and--worse--their embrace by Buckley's heirs at National Review), the thinly-veiled racism and nativism of the campaign against Obama, the transparently cruel and God-hating ideology of movement Christians; but--even though dismayed by McCain's bizarre campaign--I had retained some illusions as recently as this morning. I believed McCain to be at least a patriot, sincerely concerned with issues of national security.
His nomination of Sarah Palin ended that illusion, too.
No remotely serious politician--no honest patriot--would think of placing this individual a heartbeat away from the Oval Office, however admirable she may be, however lively her biography.
Moreover, the elation on the right regarding Palin's nomination made clear to me that none of them has ever been remotely serious about national security, either. On the contrary, as the left has insisted for years, for them it really has all been about political advantage, noise and bluster and ugliness with no core of principle, no genuine strategic commitment.
The very same people who, only yesterday, insisted that Obama's resume was too dangerously thin to entrust him with the oversight of our national security, today are celebrating Palin's accession as a triumph for conservatism (evidently this is because she is hostile to both abortion and polar bears). Their hypocrisy is staggering--they truly do believe in nothing but their own entitlement to power by any means.
And I'm very much afraid I must conclude this is as true of McCain as it is of his ghastly cheerleaders, the Limbaughs and the Hannitys. Nothing else could explain the elevation of a woman so singularly unqualified in every aspect save gender.
-
LOL.....well that's 1 pretty twisted opinion. But hey, that's largely what the 1st amendment is all about, right? The right to say and repeat whatever stupidity one wants to, aimed any given political figure or party. Hell, if this letter had been posted in Iraq, under Saddam's regime, and aimed at Saddam, the government would have him and his family rounded up and shot....if not worse. God Bless America.......& leftist idiocy ;D
-
<<toxic babbitry >>
beautiful
The letter was dead-on. McCain simply can't have it both ways. If Obama's "inexperience" renders him unfit to be C-in-C and places the country in danger, there is NO WAY this babe is any better qualified in that regard. No fucking way.
The conclusions are obvious: either McCain is
1. a senile fool given to snap judgments and/or captivated by a pretty face (he narrowly escaped such conclusions with Vicki Iseman, he might not be so lucky this time); or
2. a fucking hypocrite, voicing high concerns and alarms regarding Obama's "inexperience" and then jettisoning all such concerns when the potential C-in-C is equally inexperienced but from his own Party; or
3. a a fucking racist, willing to entrust to a white woman what he would not entrust to a black man; or
4. any two or all three of the above.
This is going to send the McCain candidacy down in flames. I don't see how he can survive this gaffe. There is no way out. And as an added bonus, you can bet your ass that Miss Almost Alaska is going to fuck up majorly and soon on this campaign. How do I know that? I am an excellent judge of human nature.
-
Speaking of twisted opinions :D
-
<<toxic babbitry >>
beautiful
The letter was dead-on. McCain simply can't have it both ways. If Obama's "inexperience" renders him unfit to be C-in-C and places the country in danger, there is NO WAY this babe is any better qualified in that regard. No fucking way.
Oh ye of little imagination.
Is it really inappropriate for the understudy to be less experienced than the main actor?
Is the on the job training needed by one of both teams better to be needed by the boss or the spare?
Obama practily admitted his need for experience in his selection of a very wonky wonk.
But why would Senator McCain need an establishment man? He has been wrestleing with the establishment his whole life .
-
It really is amazing that these folks don't see by bashing Palin they are bashing Obama. And Obama if elected is in charge, not waiting in the wings for something to happen.
Is that a nuance they don't see?
-
It really is amazing that these folks don't see by bashing Palin they are bashing Obama.
So now any criticism of Palin's selection will be considered a "bashing' ?
-
Obama practily admitted his need for experience in his selection of a very wonky wonk.
Bush did that by selecting Cheney. We all know how that turned out.
Obama chose Biden to demonstrate to doubters that he's a serious man.
McCain's choice of Palin says his personal ambition to be elected to the office he feels destined to hold trumps his countries national security. So much for "country first".
To McCain, Sarah is the default vagina, a pretty tool used tp gain the support of Evanglicals and a handfull of Hillary supporters that never took the time to learn what she stands for.
How long do you suppose it will it take the McCain handlers to program Sarah effectively enough to talk to people like Chris Wallace or Tom Brokaw?
-
<<It really is amazing that these folks don't see by bashing Palin they are bashing Obama. And Obama if elected is in charge, not waiting in the wings for something to happen.
<<Is that a nuance they don't see?>>
================================================
No, what YOU don't see is that by endorsing Palin, McCain has also endorsed Obama. If SHE'S good enough to step in tomorrow (and he MUST say that she is, otherwise he's telling America, "I've gambled your security, which I claim is so vital, on my not dying before Palin gets up to speed") then so is Obama.
What Palin's nomination really says is that McCain is a fucking hypocrite, and his claim that one needs some undefined "experience" to be the civilian C-in-C of the armed forces is largely a crock. The Constitution DOES NOT REQUIRE that the C-in-C have military or any other kind of "experience," ONLY that he or she be American-born and I believe be of a certain age, 35? or over. McCain himself demonstrates the relative insignificance of the "experience" requirement by picking Palin.
To claim that Palin has any significant edge over Obama in being experienced enough to be C - in - C is absolutely ludicrous. The title is symbolic of civilian control and oversight of the military, was never meant to imply that the President had to be a military man able to take operational control of the armed forces at the drop of a hat, otherwise the Constitution would have required that the President BE an officer with a specified minimum rank and minimum number of years of service, and in part was meant to prevent a coup-d'etat by some charismatic and politically ambitious general. Douglas MacArthur, for example, although I certainly don't mean to imply that MacArthur ever considered the option. (See the film Seven Days in May for a great fictional depiction of a MacArthur-like figure who DID consider the option.)
What really happened here was that McCain arbitrarily claimed some phony, irrelevant distinction between himself and Obama (some undefined "experience" qualifying one to be capable of assuming the role of Commander in Chief on day one) before he selected his own running mate, which was a stupid enough thing to do, and he then compounded his error by making a selection in complete disregard of the phony distinction he had just constructed. Anyone who can't, with a little help from Obama, Biden and their speech writers, see what a phony, lying hypocrite McCain must be, is willfully blind.
The beauty part of it is, by vallidating Obama as C-in-C, the senile old fart has instantly trivialized his own strongest selling point, his "service" to the nation in committing its biggest atrocities and fighting its biggest war of unprovoked aggression, his long captivity, essentially because of his war crimes, and his alleged "torture" at the hands of the Vietnamese, all of which duly impressed the redneck crypto-fascist morons whose votes he depends on.
Adios, wrinkly old guy with multi-millionaire beer heiress second wife.
-
So now any criticism of Palin's selection will be considered a "bashing' ?
Not only that but it is obviously misogynistic.
How much experience did Edwards have when Kerry picked him? Less than or equal to Palin, that is for sure. So anyone who is bashing the Palin pick from the dem side is in the words of that senile old commie fart Mikey a huge fucking hypocrite themselves. Especially when taken in the context that 18 million primary voters agreed with Hillary that Obama would not be ready on day one.
Which reminds me, what is it with you lib's and your short term stoner memory. McCain is the evil one when questioning Obama's experience when that was Hillary's theme song and Pa Bush was the evil one for bashing Dukakis about Horton, when that was Gore's theme.
Back to you.
-
<<How much experience did Edwards have when Kerry picked him? >>
Uh, what's that got to do with anything? Is Kerry running in this election? Is Edwards? I thought the candidates were McCain and Obama.
The Republican who IS running (a) made a big deal of his opponent's "inexperience" and then (b) picked someone to replace him instantly if need be, who was of no visibly greater "experience" than the "inexperienced" opponent whose "inexperience" he had constantly been denouncing.
What is so hard to understand about that? It's as if he had been denouncing Obama for being blind and then picked a blind woman as his own VP. Kinda hypocritical, no? Almost as if being blind were really no big deal in the first place, even though he said it was.
<<Less than or equal to Palin, that is for sure. So anyone who is bashing the Palin pick from the dem side is in the words of that senile old commie fart Mikey a huge fucking hypocrite themselves. >>
Except that they're not bashing Palin for being inexperienced, they're bashing senile old fascist war criminal McCain for hypocrisy. Get it? It's not really all that hard to comprehend, is it?
<<Especially when taken in the context that 18 million primary voters agreed with Hillary that Obama would not be ready on day one.>>
I get it. Hillary always speaks the truth, so if McCain says what she said, then it can't be a lie. Brilliant. Hilarious. And BTW, unless you just read 18 million primary voters' minds, you don't really know what any of them thought about the specific charge of "inexperience" or indeed what factors influenced them to vote as they did. I dunno, BT, your reasoning powers seem to be deteriorating as we speak. Maybe you should be a little more cautious in throwing around such terms as "senile," "old" and "fart." Never know what can come back in your face when there's a breeze.
<<McCain is the evil one when questioning Obama's experience when that was Hillary's theme song >>
Let's keep it honest at least. McCain is the evil one for questioning Obama's experience and then himself picking someone at an equal level of experience.
<<and Pa Bush was the evil one for bashing Dukakis about Horton, when that was Gore's theme.>>
I wouldn't even want to go there. GORE made up Willie Horton ads? Anyway, it is TOTALLY irrelevant to this particular election. Throws no light at all on whether or not MCCAIN is hypocritical, which seems to be a much more relevant toic.
-
Not only that but it is obviously misogynistic.
I agree, to "bash" Palin would be misongynistic.
She seems like a lovely woman. She must be for McCain to refer to her as his "partner & soul mate" after meeting her once.
I don't consider questioning her qualifications to be anymore a "bashing" than questioning Obamas qualifications.
I also don't share your interest in Edwards, Dukakis, Papa Bush OR Liberal dope smokers but I do enjoy reading Mikeys postings....soooo
Back to you.
-
Inexperience isn't a bad thing in a Vice President , the experience of being the vice president includes remaining well breifed all the time and being in the room when the decisions are being made.
It just includes no real power.
So is it more appropriate to place a vice president in an on the job training program , or a president|?
-
<<It really is amazing that these folks don't see by bashing Palin they are bashing Obama. And Obama if elected is in charge, not waiting in the wings for something to happen.
<<Is that a nuance they don't see?>>
================================================
No, what YOU don't see is that by endorsing Palin, McCain has also endorsed Obama. If SHE'S good enough to step in tomorrow (and he MUST say that she is, otherwise he's telling America, "I've gambled your security, which I claim is so vital, on my not dying before Palin gets up to speed") then so is Obama.
What Palin's nomination really says is that McCain is a fucking hypocrite, and his claim that one needs some undefined "experience" to be the civilian C-in-C of the armed forces is largely a crock. The Constitution DOES NOT REQUIRE that the C-in-C have military or any other kind of "experience," ONLY that he or she be American-born and I believe be of a certain age, 35? or over. McCain himself demonstrates the relative insignificance of the "experience" requirement by picking Palin.
To claim that Palin has any significant edge over Obama in being experienced enough to be C - in - C is absolutely ludicrous. The title is symbolic of civilian control and oversight of the military, was never meant to imply that the President had to be a military man able to take operational control of the armed forces at the drop of a hat, otherwise the Constitution would have required that the President BE an officer with a specified minimum rank and minimum number of years of service, and in part was meant to prevent a coup-d'etat by some charismatic and politically ambitious general. Douglas MacArthur, for example, although I certainly don't mean to imply that MacArthur ever considered the option. (See the film Seven Days in May for a great fictional depiction of a MacArthur-like figure who DID consider the option.)
What really happened here was that McCain arbitrarily claimed some phony, irrelevant distinction between himself and Obama (some undefined "experience" qualifying one to be capable of assuming the role of Commander in Chief on day one) before he selected his own running mate, which was a stupid enough thing to do, and he then compounded his error by making a selection in complete disregard of the phony distinction he had just constructed. Anyone who can't, with a little help from Obama, Biden and their speech writers, see what a phony, lying hypocrite McCain must be, is willfully blind.
The beauty part of it is, by vallidating Obama as C-in-C, the senile old fart has instantly trivialized his own strongest selling point, his "service" to the nation in committing its biggest atrocities and fighting its biggest war of unprovoked aggression, his long captivity, essentially because of his war crimes, and his alleged "torture" at the hands of the Vietnamese, all of which duly impressed the redneck crypto-fascist morons whose votes he depends on.
Adios, wrinkly old guy with multi-millionaire beer heiress second wife.
What the elder McCain has in common withPalin that really makes them kindred is the effort against the entrenched intrests in their own party .
A lack of military experience is a serious lack for someone who must make decisions that use the lives of servicemen as policy tools, the American people sometimes are willing to put up with a disadvantage like that , but sometimes war seems likely.
-
A letter posted on Andrew Sullivans blog today:
I had been reluctant to acknowledge how flawed and dead the conservative movement has become; that's over now. No more excuses, no more clinging to old visions of rational discourse and principled debate. I really have witnessed the death of conservatism and its replacement by a kind of toxic babbitry which would be merely laughable or cringeworthy if it were not also so extraordinarily dangerous.
This election year has been a series of revelations and disillusionments--the crudely ugly tactics of Limbaugh and Hannity (and--worse--their embrace by Buckley's heirs at National Review), the thinly-veiled racism and nativism of the campaign against Obama, the transparently cruel and God-hating ideology of movement Christians; but--even though dismayed by McCain's bizarre campaign--I had retained some illusions as recently as this morning. I believed McCain to be at least a patriot, sincerely concerned with issues of national security.
His nomination of Sarah Palin ended that illusion, too.
No remotely serious politician--no honest patriot--would think of placing this individual a heartbeat away from the Oval Office, however admirable she may be, however lively her biography.
Moreover, the elation on the right regarding Palin's nomination made clear to me that none of them has ever been remotely serious about national security, either. On the contrary, as the left has insisted for years, for them it really has all been about political advantage, noise and bluster and ugliness with no core of principle, no genuine strategic commitment.
The very same people who, only yesterday, insisted that Obama's resume was too dangerously thin to entrust him with the oversight of our national security, today are celebrating Palin's accession as a triumph for conservatism (evidently this is because she is hostile to both abortion and polar bears). Their hypocrisy is staggering--they truly do believe in nothing but their own entitlement to power by any means.
And I'm very much afraid I must conclude this is as true of McCain as it is of his ghastly cheerleaders, the Limbaughs and the Hannitys. Nothing else could explain the elevation of a woman so singularly unqualified in every aspect save gender.
SO WHAT - vote for the person you want to run the country. If you want Obama then vote for him if you want McCain then vote for him. Conservatives aren't going anywhere. They will vote for the best choice for them. This person that wrote this is just another run of the mill sniveling sack of shit.
-
What I like about plane is his resourcefulness. ALWAYS, you can count on this man to come up with something. Anything. A straw, if he were drowning. A match, if he were in a dynamite factory.
This is the first time I have heard the Vice Presidency of the United States of America described as "on the job training." Here I always thought that the Veep was there to step in any time when the roof falls in, nobody but God knowing when that would be.
Ah, but this time round, we have better than God. We have Candidate John Insane, "war hero," 72-year-old four-time cancer survivor with some weird growth blowing out the whole left side of his face who KNOWS (and don't ask him how, he's got a very short fuse) that he won't be called to that Great War-Crimes Prison in the sky unless and until Miss Almost Alaska has completed her course of "on-the-job training" with the Master himself. Proving in her case only the utter unimportance and insignificance of "experience" and "ability to be Commander in Chief" because believe me folks, when and if the time comes, she will be ready.
plane, your candidate is FUCKED. And he did it all to himself. There is no way on this fucking earth that he will be able to weasel out of this one. Either he gambled the "security" of the entire nation on his own ability to out-live Miss Almost Alaska's training period, or "experience" was never the factor he claimed it was. And nobody's gonna believe he gambled with the nation's security, especially when there were plenty of more "experienced" candidates to choose from.
-
"Not only that but it is obviously misogynistic."
We agree on this one, BT. Some men see women as sexual objects. It cuts into the pride of a woman.. I suppose they can not hide such borderline 'hate'.... obviously :(
-
What I like about plane is his resourcefulness. ALWAYS, you can count on this man to come up with something. Anything. A straw, if he were drowning. A match, if he were in a dynamite factory.
This is the first time I have heard the Vice Presidency of the United States of America described as "on the job training." Here I always thought that the Veep was there to step in any time when the roof falls in, nobody but God knowing when that would be.
Ah, but this time round, we have better than God. We have Candidate John Insane, "war hero," 72-year-old four-time cancer survivor with some weird growth blowing out the whole left side of his face who KNOWS (and don't ask him how, he's got a very short fuse) that he won't be called to that Great War-Crimes Prison in the sky unless and until Miss Almost Alaska has completed her course of "on-the-job training" with the Master himself. Proving in her case only the utter unimportance and insignificance of "experience" and "ability to be Commander in Chief" because believe me folks, when and if the time comes, she will be ready.
plane, your candidate is FUCKED. And he did it all to himself. There is no way on this fucking earth that he will be able to weasel out of this one. Either he gambled the "security" of the entire nation on his own ability to out-live Miss Almost Alaska's training period, or "experience" was never the factor he claimed it was. And nobody's gonna believe he gambled with the nation's security, especially when there were plenty of more "experienced" candidates to choose from.
Does it indeed make more sense then, to hire a Veep with experience so that as President the Veep can train the president????
-
A letter posted on Andrew Sullivans blog today:
I had been reluctant to acknowledge how flawed and dead the conservative movement has become; that's over now. No more excuses, no more clinging to old visions of rational discourse and principled debate. I really have witnessed the death of conservatism and its replacement by a kind of toxic babbitry which would be merely laughable or cringeworthy if it were not also so extraordinarily dangerous.
This election year has been a series of revelations and disillusionments--the crudely ugly tactics of Limbaugh and Hannity (and--worse--their embrace by Buckley's heirs at National Review), the thinly-veiled racism and nativism of the campaign against Obama, the transparently cruel and God-hating ideology of movement Christians; but--even though dismayed by McCain's bizarre campaign--I had retained some illusions as recently as this morning. I believed McCain to be at least a patriot, sincerely concerned with issues of national security.
His nomination of Sarah Palin ended that illusion, too.
No remotely serious politician--no honest patriot--would think of placing this individual a heartbeat away from the Oval Office, however admirable she may be, however lively her biography.
Moreover, the elation on the right regarding Palin's nomination made clear to me that none of them has ever been remotely serious about national security, either. On the contrary, as the left has insisted for years, for them it really has all been about political advantage, noise and bluster and ugliness with no core of principle, no genuine strategic commitment.
The very same people who, only yesterday, insisted that Obama's resume was too dangerously thin to entrust him with the oversight of our national security, today are celebrating Palin's accession as a triumph for conservatism (evidently this is because she is hostile to both abortion and polar bears). Their hypocrisy is staggering--they truly do believe in nothing but their own entitlement to power by any means.
And I'm very much afraid I must conclude this is as true of McCain as it is of his ghastly cheerleaders, the Limbaughs and the Hannitys. Nothing else could explain the elevation of a woman so singularly unqualified in every aspect save gender.
SO WHAT - vote for the person you want to run the country. If you want Obama then vote for him if you want McCain then vote for him. Conservatives aren't going anywhere. They will vote for the best choice for them. This person that wrote this is just another run of the mill sniveling sack of shit.
I have beentrying to find a historical prescident .
I think I do have one Sarah Palin situation resembles the situation of Vice President Theodore Rosevelt.
-
<<Does it indeed make more sense then, to hire a Veep with experience so that as President the Veep can train the president?>>
What makes sense is for a qualified President to hire a qualified Veep.
What does not make sense is for a candidate to bitch that his opponent is unqualified because his hair is red, and then himself hire a red-haired Veep to be his own replacement at any time if need be.
One might think the candidate who bitched about red hair is some kind of fucking hypocrite.
One might also think that his opponent's red hair (up to then the strongest point in the candidate's pitch) was really no big deal after all.
One might think, absent the alleged red hair as a factor, there were no reasons left to vote for the hypocritical old fart any more.
-
<<I think I do have one Sarah Palin situation resembles the situation of Vice President Theodore Rosevelt.>>
I know. He was runner-up in the Miss New York pageant. And he was an avid hunter, too.
-
Another example is Harry S. Truman. A dark horse candidate put forth by the party bosses and FDR to put Henry Wallace in his place.
Kept in the dark until he was actually president. Had no idea about the progress of the war other than what he read in the newspoapoers, or the Manhattan project.
Yet he did OK in some folks mind.
-
Harry Truman was an artillery captain in the First World War. He had lots of "experience." But he himself did not think the job demanded much. I don't have the quote exactly but it was something along the lines that there were hundreds of men who could do the job, and I believe he meant then the Presidency and not the Veep.
-
<<Not only that but it is obviously misogynistic. >>
Yep. Obviously. She's a candidate, she's criticized, she's a woman: MISOGYNY.
Works every time: Obama's a candidate, he's criticized, he's a black: RAC . . . uhhh, hold it a minute, no . . . that can't . . . lemme see . . . SHUT UP, I'm thinking . . .
-
Misogyny is just as accurate a claim as your constant cries of racism. Moreso what with your constant referral to women as bimbos.
-
<<Misogyny is just as accurate a claim as your constant cries of racism.>>
Nope. Misogyny is a crock. Racism is a real factor.
<< Moreso what with your constant referral to women as bimbos.>>
Keep it honest. WOMAN. singular. The only woman I called a bimbo is Miss Almost Alaska. And she is a beauty pageant contestant. The last stop in bimboism before Playboy Bunny and Cocktail Waitress. I don't think Hillary or her supporters are going to be thrilled by Ms. Palin.
-
*sniff* *sniff* - is that the smell of desperation in the morning? Get real! Palin won't lose McCain a single vote he actually had, and has bought him some he didn't have.
Palin's experience is at least as good as Obama's, and in some respects, better. Obama has been in the Senate for exactly 187 days - what has he accomplished there besides giving great speeches and running for president?
Realistically, if either Palin or Obama had to take the reigns, I expect both of them are quick studies. And Palin in particular has a track record of rising to the occasion. Neither one would be the first thrust into the role with little preparation.
McCain's experience is a *plus* - not a necessity. It's like power brakes in a car - if you can get them for no extra charge, they're a selling point. But you can do with out them if necessary.
-
<<Does it indeed make more sense then, to hire a Veep with experience so that as President the Veep can train the president?>>
What makes sense is for a qualified President to hire a qualified Veep.
LOL....so much for the Democrat ticket, then
-
<<Get real! Palin won't lose McCain a single vote he actually had, and has bought him some he didn't have.
<<Palin's experience is at least as good as Obama's, and in some respects, better. Obama has been in the Senate for exactly 187 days - what has he accomplished there besides giving great speeches and running for president?
<<Realistically, if either Palin or Obama had to take the reigns, I expect both of them are quick studies. And Palin in particular has a track record of rising to the occasion. Neither one would be the first thrust into the role with little preparation.
<<McCain's experience is a *plus* - not a necessity. It's like power brakes in a car - if you can get them for no extra charge, they're a selling point. But you can do with out them if necessary.>>
* * * * * * * * * * * *
You also missed the point - - it's not about Sarah's or Obama's experience or inexperience, it's about McCain's hypocrisy; most of his attacks are focused on Obama's inexperience - - and yet he doesn't give a shit about experience when he picks his own VP. THAT is McCain's problem.
-
<<Get real! Palin won't lose McCain a single vote he actually had, and has bought him some he didn't have.
<<Palin's experience is at least as good as Obama's, and in some respects, better. Obama has been in the Senate for exactly 187 days - what has he accomplished there besides giving great speeches and running for president?
<<Realistically, if either Palin or Obama had to take the reigns, I expect both of them are quick studies. And Palin in particular has a track record of rising to the occasion. Neither one would be the first thrust into the role with little preparation.
<<McCain's experience is a *plus* - not a necessity. It's like power brakes in a car - if you can get them for no extra charge, they're a selling point. But you can do with out them if necessary.>>
* * * * * * * * * * * *
You also missed the point - - it's not about Sarah's or Obama's experience or inexperience, it's about McCain's hypocrisy; most of his attacks are focused on Obama's inexperience - - and yet he doesn't give a shit about experience when he picks his own VP. THAT is McCain's problem.
What are the chances McCain is going to pull a William Henry Harrison and croak within a month of being inaugurated? Probably close to zero. McCain is grooming a successor. The chances of her actually having to take the reigns before gaining substantial executive branch exposure and experience are not zero, but they're pretty close to it. The Vice President is highly unlikely to be called upon to perform presidential duties in any substantial manner, and anyone being honest recognizes that. The Vice Presidency has been used as an opportunity to groom successors since at least Teddy Roosevelt.
-
<<What are the chances McCain is going to pull a William Henry Harrison and croak within a month of being inaugurated? Probably close to zero. McCain is grooming a successor. The chances of her actually having to take the reigns before gaining substantial executive branch exposure and experience are not zero, but they're pretty close to it. The Vice President is highly unlikely to be called upon to perform presidential duties in any substantial manner, and anyone being honest recognizes that. The Vice Presidency has been used as an opportunity to groom successors since at least Teddy Roosevelt.>>
You and McCain must be reading from a different copy of the Constitution than the one I have. Mine doesn't say anything about the duty of the President to "groom a successor." This isn't a monarchy we're talking about. The American people will pick the next President their own unique little way, by voting for him or her, the way they always have.
If it only takes a month to "groom a successor," then all that "experience" that McCain was babbling about earlier doesn't amount to a hill of beans. You need a lot of experience for this job but you can learn it all in a month? Huh? Impressive. I hope our local surgeons have more than a month's practice behind them.
The chances of her being handed the reins are not as slim as you think. You can't get at it statistically, because the U.S. has never elected a 72-year-old President before, let alone a three-time cancer survivor, let alone a three-time cancer survivor with a visible growth on his head, but I don't think they're negligible, and I don't think Americans who cared enough about their own security to make it their number one concern (i.e., McCain voters) are going to be overly pleased about the senile old coot putting their security at risk in a gamble on whatever those odds turn out to be, just to gain an edge over his opponent in an election.
-
The chances of her being handed the reins are not as slim as you think. You can't get at it statistically, because the U.S. has never elected a 72-year-old President before, let alone a three-time cancer survivor, let alone a three-time cancer survivor with a visible growth on his head, but I don't think they're negligible, and I don't think Americans who cared enough about their own security to make it their number one concern (i.e., McCain voters) are going to be overly pleased about the senile old coot putting their security at risk in a gamble on whatever those odds turn out to be, just to gain an edge over his opponent in an election.
What are the alternatives? Even if he dies the day after his inauguration, his successor will be at least as seasoned as his competitor. If McCain doesn't die, we have the benefit of his experience. If he does, we're no worse off, and arguably better off, than if Hopenchange wins. Given that the person in the best position to gauge McCain's prospects of longevity is McCain himself, I don't think it's an unreasonable gamble.
-
Even if he dies the day after his inauguration, his successor will be at least as seasoned as his competitor. If McCain doesn't die, we have the benefit of his experience. If he does, we're no worse off, and arguably better off, than if Hopenchange wins. Given that the person in the best position to gauge McCain's prospects of longevity is McCain himself, I don't think it's an unreasonable gamble.
Excellent assessment RD. To think, the GOP veep pretty much is equivent to the Democrat front runner. Scary, isn't it. And if we take executive experience alone, she takes 1st prize even over her front runner
-
Even if he dies the day after his inauguration, his successor will be at least as seasoned as his competitor. If McCain doesn't die, we have the benefit of his experience. If he does, we're no worse off, and arguably better off, than if Hopenchange wins. Given that the person in the best position to gauge McCain's prospects of longevity is McCain himself, I don't think it's an unreasonable gamble.
Excellent assessment RD. To think, the GOP veep pretty much is equivent to the Democrat front runner. Scary, isn't it. And if we take executive experience alone, she takes 1st prize even over her front runner
The women owned a business and has governed for a couple years. Been on commissions, and other boards. On the other hand Obama never ran a company, governed and has been running for POTUS for the entire time he has served in his one term Senate seat.
Is biden supposed to coach Obama on being a president? like biden would know.