New Contact Email

adambrickley.brickyard@blogspot.com

Monday, September 22, 2008

Billy, Jimmy, Frankie and Woody

For some reason, the Democrats seem to still think that the "foreign policy experience" argument is their best weapon against Gov. Palin. Of course, this is utter hogwash when one considers that Barack Obama has nine fewer years in public office, has never held an executive position, and has no foreign policy credentials...but lets play with it anyway, as we are likely to continue hearing it. The standard line of response from the GOP has been to compare Sarah to Teddy Roosevelt, which is fair considering that TR was an outdoorsy maverick who became VP (and later President) after only two years as Governor of New York. However, the problem is that he was a Republican. I personally think that the best way to win this debate on "foreign policy experience" is to force the Democratic Party to take a good, long look in the mirror. Hence, I have decided to look into the pre-presidency credentials of four iconic figures in the Democratic Party. I will start tonight with William Jefferson Clinton and work my way back to Jimmy Carter, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson. So, without further ado, meet Billy:

At age 46, William Jefferson Clinton was the third-youngest man ever to become president; and as a governor out-of-the-way Arkansas, he was a bit of an obscure choice. Before seeking the presidency, he had served three terms as his state's Governor. Prior to that, his only experience was as Arkansas' Attorney General and a losing candidate for Congress. While he had spent a long time in the governor's mansion, he had never held any federal office and had no foreign policy credentials whatsoever. However, despite being something of an unknown quantity, he was able to unseat President George H.W. Bush, who had a long history in foreign policy, despite the fact that the First Gulf War was fresh in America's memory. So, while I would admit that he had more gubernatorial experience than Sarah Palin, he was arguably LESS qualified when it came to world affairs. Arkansas has no international borders, no coastlines, no maritime territory, and probably does not deal with as many international agreements as does the State of Alaska. So, if the Democratic Party is so committed to foreign policy experience, why could they not find a more qualified opponent to take on George H.W. Bush?

As a footnote, I would add that most Democrats consider Mr. Clinton to have been a very good president and would love to bring back his foreign policy.

Stay tuned for more revelations from the Democratic Past.

56 comments:

Scott said...

what IS foreign policy? it depends on what the definition of IS is.......

arkansas is a pretty foreign state compared to some northern states, and even the west... so it can be said he had foreign policy experience.


gotta love bubba

TrueRedHead said...

Good points, Adam. Bill Clinton was and is ever the consummate politician.

And now (with apologies to Monty Python) for something completely different: A "View" of Bill Clinton making sense (I know!!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dns6oX4p98

Carlos Echevarria said...

Sarah Palin is more prepared to be Commander in Chief, than either Uncle Joe "Baretta" Bin Biden, D-Tehran or B. Hussein Obama, Jr.

She has dealt with Russia, Canada and other Far East nations & Barry's claim to fame is denigrating America to 200,000 anti US radicals, who were drunk! !!!

Plus, she had the honor to visit our troops in Germany unlike the Muslim interloper....

pHaT_aL said...

If you listen to some of the interviews of Bill Clinton--he supports McCain.

Does this mean he is a traitor to the democratic party?

Raving MainyYak said...

Well done Adam; I was considering a similar post, but you have nailed it. When you come right down to it, the only President in recent memory with real prior foreign policy experience is the first President Bush (former CIA Director and Vice President.)

tom paine said...

Carlos Echevarria said that Gov. Palin has:

"...dealt with Russia, Canada and other Far East nations..."

Okay Carlos, when you say "dealt with" do you mean that Gov. Palin maybe once bought some products from those nations? If so, no quarrel.

But if you mean Gov. Palin's actual foreign policy dealings, would you please list them?

Thanks much.

Erin said...

Adam, I've been making a point about gubernatorial experience for some time now. A current thought trend in politics is that governors make good presidents. Each party has their own recent example to hold up--Reagan and Clinton. I skip Bush for obvious reasons; however, I believe that history will be far kinder to him than we have been, and I think we're already beginning to see glimmers of that.

So, we're left with this; what governor has had much foreign policy experience? I maintain that the McCain camp defense to these attacks would be to throw those two names up as examples instead of the ludicrous arguments they've been making involving a pair of binoculars and the AK National Guard. They're hurting themselves by doing so, and an argument for the merits of a governor is well worth their trouble.

Think of it this way; why are governors effective? Because they've run something! Is it as large and complex as the entire country? No. But we like that executive experience anyway. In light of this tendency to hold up gubernatorial experience as "worthy," in spite of the size differences presented, wouldn't it make sense to take this comparison a step further and liken the other 49 states to foreign nations?

Sarah Palin has what she needs to run this country, and McCain's campaign would do well to change their argument on this.

Scott said...

as for clinton supporting mccain..

as early as 2 weeks before the nomination of obama both bill and hillary clinton publicly admitted obama was not ready to lead the country. Then we see bill at the convention supporting him. It's all politics. It's interesting to remember literally half of the democrats did not want obama, they supported hillary.

Jill said...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

Bill Clinton is telling Dems to lay off Palin. Good words. The article a couple down from that one on CNN's political ticker is "Palin accuses 'Obama-Biden Democrats' of spreading lies." The comment section, over 400, is full of mockery. I scrolled down, scanning the comments and couldn't find a word of support. Maybe one is in there, but I just stopped reading.

tom paine said...

Adam, everything you say about Bill Clinton is true. But I'm not sure what your point might have been. Let's look at what you did say:

"Clinton was a governor of out-of-the-way Arkansas"

Palin is governor of WAY out-of-the-way Alsaka.

"Clinton served three terms as his state's Governor."

Palin has served about 1/2 of one term.

"Prior to that, Clinton's only experience was as Arkansas' Attorney General"

Palin was on city counsel and mayor of Wasilla.

"Clinton was a losing candidate for Congress."

Palin lost the GOP nomination for lieutenant governor.

"Clinton never held any federal office and had no foreign policy credentials whatsoever."

Palin has no foreign policy credentials, she had never visited a nation outside North America and didn't even have a passport until recently.

"Arkansas has no international borders, no coastlines, no maritime territory, and probably does not deal with as many international agreements as does the State of Alaska."

The governor of Alaska has no authority to make foreign policy or international agreements.

Also, Arkansas' population is about 2,835,000. Alaska's population is about 683,000.

Little Rock's population is about 190,000. Wasilla had about 5000 residents when Palin took office.

Also, Slick Willy won a Rhodes Scholarship and attended Oxford in England and worked for Sen. Fullbright in the US Senate.

So what is your point Adam, except that Slick Willy had far far more education, travel, and government experience than Sarah Palin?

Tom C. said...

Tommy,

Did you even listen to what Bill Clinton said about Palin during his WAY lukewarm talk of supporting Obama?

He said the Dems shouldn't be focusing on her, and he warned not to underestimate her.

She, much like Bill Clinton, knows how to connect with the voter. She has decent political instincts.

Americans DON"T vote for foreign policy experience. They want leadership and Palin has that.

So what if she has little foreign plicy exp.? Big deal. As soon as she's President, she hires Kissinger or Baker for her cabinet. Bingo, issue solved.

A president must first and foremost be a leader and have good political skills to connect with people before she can convince them to follow his/her's policies.

This is what McCain saw in her. He's only met her twice before he chose her for veep and yet he's been studying for awhile and see's a kindred spirit. A leader.

multipath said...

Best of Lynette Long

PRINCIPLE OVER POLICY

14 reasons why she is not voting for Obama

http://www.lynettelong.com/my_weblog/best_of_lynette/

Jill said...

She's good! If McCain and Palin are in the White House in January, many people need to be thanked, and Hillary Clinton supporters are not the least of these.

Fourteen points, all ending with fourteen excellent questions.

From lynettelong.com

by Lynette Long

People wonder how I could vote Republican when I am a lifelong Democrat and I don’t agree with the Republicans on many key issues. This election I’m voting on Principle over Policy and Patriotism over Promises. Politicians pander to the electorate to win votes. Obama is no different. I don’t care what he says he is going to do for America, as my grandmother used to say, "Talk is Cheap." What I care more about is "Who is Barack Obama?" and "What has the Democratic Party become?" So in a clear effort to explain my position, here are 14 reasons I will not vote for Obama, my party’s nominee.

The Chairperson of the Democratic National Committee has never been a woman. How can I support a party that is primarily composed on women but run by men?

Obama sat for 20 years inside Trinity United Church of Christ which exposes Black Liberation Theology and listened to Rev. Wright his mentor trash America and white Americans. How can I support a candidate that goes to a church that preaches hatred in any form?

Obama casts himself as a candidate of change but he is an old Chicago-style politician. He won his first State Senate race by eliminating all other candidates on technicalities and his U.S. Senate race by opening the sealed divorce file of his opponent and forcing his opponent to withdraw. How can I vote for a candidate who is not who is says he is?

The Democratic Party was silent to the rampant sexism that occurred during the primary process. How can I support a party that did not acknowledge the rampant sexism in the campaign and consequently ignored me as a woman?

Obama did not stand up for Senator Clinton when Rev. Wright and Father Pflaeger trashed her from the pulpit of Trinity United Church of Christ. When Ludacris called Hillary an irrelevant bitch, Obama was mute. How can I support a nominee, without the courage to stand up against blatant racism and sexism?

Nancy Pelosi, in conjunction with other Democratic leaders, paid off superdelegates to get them to vote for Obama. How can I support a party that pre-selected its nominee?

Obama only lost one out of fourteen caucuses. Obama lost twenty-one out of thirty-eight primaries. This discrepancy is due to voter fraud, voter intimidation, busing, and voter suppression in the caucuses. How can I support an illegal nominee, a nominee who will use any means necessary to win?

Democratic insiders knew about the caucus fraud and voter fraud during the primary process. How can I support a party that turned a blind eye to the blatant irregularities during the primary process?

Obama is inexperienced. He has served less than one term in the United States Senate of which he has spent most the time campaigning. How can I support a candidate that does not have the experience to lead this country?

Obama has numerous questionable associations. There is an old expression, "By his friends, shall ye know him." How can I vote for someone I don’t trust?

Obama ignored the will of 18 million voters and did not choose Hillary Rodham Clinton as his running mate. How can I support a nominee who brushed aside the will of 18 million voters?

The Democratic Party which is composed of 60% women has not put a woman on the Democratic Ticket for 24 years. How can I support a party that takes the votes of the women of the party for granted?

Barack Obama had a sham of a roll call at the Democratic National Convention in Denver and strong armed delegates to cast their votes for him. Clinton Delegates, were shouted down, threatened with their jobs, and replaced. How can I support a nominee who does not support democracy?

How can I vote for a candidate I don’t trust, whose character is questionable, who I believe obtained the nomination illegally, who ignored the blatant sexism leveled a Senator Clinton and Governor Palin, and is too inexperienced to do the job? I can’t.

VOTE DEMOCRATIC IN 2008? NEVER! RETURN TO THE PARTY IN 2012? NOT SURE!

huskyonspeed said...

It should be pointed out that in 1992, foreign policy probably wasn't much of an issue compared to today.
I would like to bring up a comparison though. Some people think that since the inexperienced Obama picked an experienced VP, then the ticket will be ok on foreign policy. But since McCain picked an inexperienced VP, then their ticket is weaker. But if, God forbid, something would happen to McCain, wouldn't Palin pick a new VP, and have the opportunity to pick someone with foreign policy experience (Lindsey Graham perhaps?) to"re-strengthen" the ticket?

techno said...

What is so disappointing in Presidential elections is that the jaded media seldom asks a cogent question regarding how the candidate views the job and duties of President or Vice-President, his or her philosphy of governing and the process he or she would undertake to come to a decision. With that in mind here are 10 questions that should be asked of candidates but never will be: 1) As President, except when the VP is incommunicado, would you as a matter of course consult with and welcome input from your VP on every major decision that you take? 2) When cabinet meetings or meetings with advisors are held which technique of input do you favor the most to generate new ideas or approaches to problems: brainstorming or through a formal structure of asking each individual for his or her ideas in turn; 3) What description best describes how you see the job of a VP: a person with well-defined duties in the executive branch who enhances the productivity and success of the President, a sounding board and confidante who the President continually relies on for input and criticism, an intermediary sent to Congress so the Congress can know how the President is thinking on a given issue and which policy he wants to pursue and who can also gauge whether the Congress will support his proposals or a ceremonial position in which the VP's main duties are to attend state funerals and wake up each morning wondering if he or she will be promoted on the spot? 4)When making a decision what do you believe should, in the majority of cases, be your guidepost: ideology and principle, pragmatism and practicality, or utilitarianism and catering to the majority sentiment; 5) After your term in office what do see as your 3 legacies that you will have left to the American people? 6) What idea best describes the relationship you want to have with Congress: a partnership where the Executive and Legislative Branch is separate but equal but works together for the common good in a spirit of cooperation and give and take, an arms-length relationship where the Congress is left up to its own devices to devise legislation knowing full well that you will veto any bill that you do not favor, or developing a good personal relationship with senior Congressmen, Senators, and power brokers so that you can use your influence to orchestrate through Congress legislation that you favor? 7) What is the main virtue that you possess that would enhance your Presidency and what is your main character, physical or mental flaw that could short-circuit your Presidency? 8) If you were leading in the polls consistently by more than 5 points would you without hesitation agree to at least 2 more debates with your opponent if he asked for them? 9) As Commander-in-Chief whose input would be more valuable to you when making a military decision to go to war: the Joint Chiefs of Staff, your VP, Cabinet and advisors, your spouse or your own conscience and wisdom? 10) Projecting ahead, when leaving office what do you think is the best piece of advice you could give to your successor?

techno said...

There is a great piece in the Wall Street Journal by William McGurn, former chief speech writer to George W Bush, titled "How Sarah Got McCain's Groove Back" that comments on the importance of Sarah's nomination for VP and why the race currently stands the way that it does.

techno said...

Joe Biden, when I heard you, in an interview with Katie Couric, rebuke the Obama campaign for airing the despicable ad regarding your good friend John McCain's inability to use a computer or use E-mail I really admired you and gained respect for you at that moment for your simple honesty and decency, because you knew deep down why John is incapable of this and simply put you found the ad disgusting and shameful. So to my chagrin by going to the National Review Corner I find that you have flipflopped after being scolded by the Obama campaign and use the exscuse that McCain's ads are just as bad. Sir, if you don't know the difference between a political ad and an ad that ridicules and demeans a former POW for the debilitating wounds (physically unable to operate a computer) that he suffered while fighting for his country you sir lack character and do not deserve to be VP and your running mate does not deserve to be President. God help us all if you do prevail.

Greg said...

Media pummel Palin while Obama gets kid gloves
Ron Smith
September 17, 2008

Former top Hillary Clinton adviser Mark Penn says the media obsession with finding skeletons in the closet of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin since virtually the moment she was named the Republican vice presidential candidate could well backfire.

In an interview with CBSNews.com, Mr. Penn said, "I think here the media are on very dangerous ground. I think that when you see them going through every single expense report that Governor Palin ever filed, if they don't do that for all four of the candidates, they're on very dangerous ground. I think the media so far have been the biggest losers in this race. And they continue to have growing credibility problems."

I couldn't agree more. The scrutiny accorded Governor Palin is far more intense and malicious in its intent than any directed toward either of the men on the Democratic ticket. Liberals are driven nuts by the idea that this woman could be that proverbial heartbeat away from being president.

There are all sorts of rumors and innuendos about Sen. Barack Obama, too. How is this different? It's different because the attacks on Mrs. Palin of which I'm speaking come not from "Swift-boaters" or extremist bloggers, but from the bastions of American journalism. The opinion-makers in American journalism seem to loathe Mrs. Palin.

The New York Times, to cite one such entity, has totally discarded any notion of being objective about this race. On Sunday, the Times ran a story about Mrs. Palin's tenure as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, headlined, "Once Elected, Palin Hired Friends and Lashed Foes." Stop the presses. Certainly no other politician has done any such thing.

The Times story says, "Throughout her political career, she has pursued vendettas, fired officials who crossed her and sometimes blurred the line between government and personal grievance, according to a review of public records and interviews with 60 Republican and Democratic legislators and local officials."

Even so, the report from Wasilla concedes Mrs. Palin has done a lot of good things as well and has "many supporters." Well, yeah, judging from her well-noted high approval ratings among Alaskans.

The Sunday talk shows were filled with politicians doing their partisan posturing over Sarah Palin's qualifications for high office. Democrats say she doesn't have any, or at least not enough, while Republicans point out she possesses more executive experience than the man at the top of the Democratic ticket - even though that man, Barack Obama, is the object of passion among all well-meaning persons who've gone to school, learned what properly indoctrinated people learn and abandoned whatever it is that makes so many yokels in fly-over country cling to their guns and their Bibles and their (assumed) evil racism.

In fact, it's become an article of faith on the political left to claim that an Obama loss in November can only happen if white racism wins the day for Mr. McCain. Never mind that millions of white Americans have voted for the man in the Democratic primaries, and that there are plenty of reasons other than racism that one might prefer the Republican candidate. These include a resume many people think is thinner than Mrs. Palin's, his adherence to extreme liberal views (the kind that sank George McGovern, Walter F. Mondale, Michael S. Dukakis and John Kerry in their attempts to win the White House), his association with shady developer Tony Rezko, his connections to the cesspool that is Chicago machine politics, and his long-term membership in the congregation of the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., he of the "God damn America" rant.

Where are the teams of reporters poring over the negative aspects in the life and career of the junior senator from Illinois? The newspapers and networks wasted no time dispatching reporters to Alaska to dig up whatever dirt they could on the mother of five who spoke to 37 million television viewers in accepting her nomination, captivating so many of them and energizing what had been a dispirited Republican base.

Oh, so that's it. Even though the political maxim is that nobody votes for the person in the second spot of a presidential ticket, there is apparently some considerable fright among Democrats and their media loyalists that Sarah Palin could turn enough votes toward the GOP to decide the election in John McCain's favor. They'll do everything in their power to make that nightmare fade away, so Americans and people of good will all over the world will awaken that Wednesday morning after the results are counted and be seized by joy that their prayers have been answered and their savior has been given the keys to the kingdom.

Jan said...

The smaller populations of Wasilla and Alaska are pluses to me. She has had the opportunity to govern while still being a part of the community and able to hear what the people want. I like that she hasn't been out of touch with the people she represents.

huskyonspeed said...

I nominate techno to be the moderator at the debate!

techno said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
caem said...

See how Obama is repositioning himself for the debate - and he has done that in the past. Mccain needs to mention that as mere repositioning for the shake of winning an election. And that is what is trying to do right now. he should not be given a pass!!

This is what he said:
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) said in an interview aired Tuesday that the cost of the mortgage bailout plan may rein in his ambitious plans for health care, energy, education and infrastructure.
Obama’s comments reflect the possible new constraints on the next president’s ability to expand or start programs or cut taxes. The government financial interventions of the past two weeks could cost more than $1 trillion.
Obama told NBC’s Matt Lauer on the “Today” show that he doesn’t expect the mortgage plan to cost the full $700 billion right away, and all the money won’t be lost.
“Does that mean that I can do everything that I’ve called for in this campaign right away?” Obama said. “Probably not. I think we’re going to have to phase it in. And a lot of it’s going to depend on what our tax revenues look like.”
_____________

Chus said...

Funny!: Sarah Palin Baby Name Generator

tom paine said...

Adam,

What would be the opinion here if I said:

"I do think in a world that is so complicated, so interconnected and so combustible, you really got to have some people in charge that have some sense of the bigger scope of the world. I think that’s just a requirement."

So is Gov. Palin qualified to be president?

"I think it’s a stretch to, in any way, to say that she’s got the experience to be president of the United States.

Gosh, Gov. Palin explained her national security credentials by claiming, 'You can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska.'

I think they ought to be just honest about it and stop the nonsense about, ‘I look out my window and I see Russia and so therefore I know something about Russia. That kind of thing is insulting to the American people.”

Palin doesn’t have any foreign policy credentials. You get a passport for the first time in your life last year? I mean, I don’t know what you can say. You can’t say anything in her defense.”

Now imagine what you would say if that was said by respected member of Congress. Now imagine if it was said by one of the most respected members of the GOP in the US Senate.

Well, it was said by a Viet Nam veteran who received the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry, Purple Heart, Army Commendation Medal, and the Combat Infantryman Badge. A man who worked under Ronald Reagan and whom Bush wanted as his VP. A man who showed his character by resigning from a Veternas Administration position because his boss was cutting Vet programs, said Vets were greedy, and that Agent Orange was like "a little teenage ache."

The man who made the comments about Gov. Palin is none other than Sen. Chuck Hagel.

renee said...

Your point is well taken, however, age is not the issue. Liberals make emotional decisions, and then look for ways to justify them. Look what this liberal commented regarding the 'fingernails across the chalkboard'.

http://www.sarahsarmy.com/smf/index.php?topic=8.0

Alyse said...

the fact that the people of alaska support her, in light of the negative press, is a true testament to her capabilities. this guy is a real alaskan and has vocalized his support - check it out at http://earfl.com/groups/320?recording_id=5054&auto_play=trueo2

pHaT_aL said...

Ron Paul on the economy: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/23/paul.bailout/

What I've been saying all along.

loki said...

You may have seen this ad already but I just watched it and thought I'd share for those who have not.


http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/23/
video-catholic-votes-new-pro-life-ad/

Adam Brickley, aka "ElephantMan" said...

Dear Tom Paine,
You have submitted several personal comments to the "moderator", which due to the nature of their content will not be posted. However, if you would like serious, real answers to your questions, please use the "contact us" button using an email address and we will be happy to respond to your questions.
Thank You,
The Moderator

Mountain Mama said...

I hope all went very well when Gov. Palin met with those nine world leaders today. When and how will we learn more about these meetings?

Christina said...

PBS "Now" has a poll question up:
"Do you think Sarah Palin is qualified to serve as Vice President of the United States?"
Vote Here:
http://www.pbs.org/now/polls/poll-435.html

She's running at 50% yes right now...

knowitall said...

Adam,
I think your comments on past presidents are very good and very timely.

This is in response to Techno's post on 10 questions that have not been asked.

I have been watching for one particular question for 20 years, ever since the person asked Pres Clinton if he wears boxers or briefs. If you can ask about underwear, isn't is possible to ask about anything?

No candidate is ever asked if they have had an abortion or fathered a child who was aborted.
I feel confident that I know Sarah Palin's answer.
Aren't there candidates who strongly support or strongly oppose abortion who would want to brag about their answer. And yet no member of the MSM asks this.

Tom C. said...

Hey, I know this thread is more about past Presidents, but I came across a wonderful video add. Let us know what you think.

http://hotair.com/archives/
2008/09/23/video-catholic-votes-
new-pro-life-ad/

By the way, I enjoyed Bill Clinton on the View where he said it was OK to vote for Palin.

Erin said...

After listening to Biden's mouth explosion today (and yesterday, and the day before that, and...) as well as Clinton's kind remarks concerning McCain and Sarah, I'm beginning to think the next explosive headline we're going to see is that there's a massive conspiracy in the Democratic party to get McCain elected. But of course they can't outright endorse him, so they're taking Obama out at the knees. Yep, the MSM will be all over this by the closing arguments of the VP debate.

Grace Explosion said...

Hi... You know, I honestly have to say to be fair and objective - I think that Bill Clinton truly was highly educated as a Rhoades Scholar and had some exceptional experience and preparation to run as a Presidential nominee. And, well, he did win. :)

He is very intelligent, I might add - cuz he said that Sarah Palin has a LOT going for her!! cuz she does. Also, I believe that Obama really, really treated Hillary Clinton without proper respect and strong armed the nominee process with tactics that are not good... as we've seen with astroturfing, etc. And I think Bill Clinton truly enjoyed saying some glowing things about Sarah.

He's so smart. You realize, if McCain/Palin win - Bill is setting up for Hillary to come back in 2012 as Democratic nominee for President, of course. He IS a Rhoades scholar, alright!

BUT, here!! Take a look at Sarah Palin. She's such a world leader. She carries such charisma, persona, and has such strength of caracter. She's going to be excellent as a world leader and diplomat - and you can even see the pictures or click on videos and get that impression, I think. This is about her meeting world leaders at the UN.

America loves Sarah Palin!! The world loves Sarah Palin!!

And I believe we love her for the right reasons. She is a servant and has a strength of spirit about her that's genuine and authentic. She's not claiming to be "the One" and want the world to worship her in the darkness of exaltation. No, she's a beacon of light and love in connectedness in humility and confidence and a spirit that is truly, imo,... GOOD!! :)

We love Sarah!! She's a world leader.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080924/ap_on_el_pr/palin_leaders

Palin meets her first world leaders in New York - Yahoo! News

techno said...

Wouldn't it be super ironic that the three most hated villains of the conservative movement in the USA could be most responsible for the creation of the first woman President of the USA-Sarah Palin: John McCain by choosing Sarah, Barack Obama by not choosing Hillary and Bill Clinton for legitimizing Sarah's VP credentials on the View and his interview with Greta on Fox. Hollywood couldn't have written this script.

Grace Explosion said...

huskey,

great point. I hadn't even considered that - but it's a slam dunk retort and response. The McCain camp should use it - and Governor Palin should be prepared with that answer in a debate, imo.

Pass it along!! :)

caem said...

Adam!

Why dont you post the Youtube link to catholics vote's ad on the main page.

It is the best ad that any group has ever produced. It makes it very clear, that the economy, important as it is, is not the most important issue in this election!!

It is a choice between protecting the our pockets/houses and protecting our soul (the moral fiber of this nation)!!

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/23/video-catholic-votes-new-pro-life-ad/

tom paine said...

tom c.,

You do not even seem to be able to see exactly what McCain's selection of Gov. Palin indicated.

Sen. McCain likes to project the image that he is a "maverick" who has principles and who sticks to them. Right?

Now look at the facts and the trail of events. (that's always better than party loyalty) McCain's obvious first choice for VP was Joe Leiberman. His strong second choice was Tom Ridge. This has been documented by McCain insiders.

But McCain must have allowed his inner band of advisors (mostly former lobbyists who do not have the best interests of our nation as their goal) to convince him that choosing Gov. Palin might be his only hope to win the election.

So Sen. McCain caved and in the process cashed in his principles and went against much of what has defined his entire life.

Perhaps when Gov. Bush trashed McCain during the 2000 SC primary (anyone recall that?) and caused the McCain bid to fail, it jaded McCain far more than anyone realized.

None of this really has anything to do with liking or not liking Gov. Palin. It's simply an indication of how Sen. McCain most certainly did not stick to his principles and his own personal first choice for a running mate. Those are irrefutable facts.

tom paine said...

mountain mama said..." hope all went very well when Gov. Palin met with those nine world leaders today. When and how will we learn more about these meetings?"

Well m/mama, if Team McCain would have allowed reporters to ask a few questions of Gov. Palin (for a change) we might have learned more about the meetings quite quickly! :)

Dean said...

Here is some great video from the McCain Town hall meeting in Scranton, PA. A lady stood up and chewed out the media for their attacks on Sarah Palin.


“I just wanted to take an opportunity to ask the media: ‘Where’s your thirty investigators over in Chicago look at Ayers?’”

“We want the media to start doing their job and stop picking on little children because of their age and their pregnancies. Shame on you, shame on all of yous.”

http://patriotroom.com/?p=2277



Palin has the Character, Integrity, and Honesty that is needed. Palin is transparent about who she is and takes a stance on her beliefs. Palin is a quick learner and will pick up on foreign policy issues quickly.

Obama has many agendas behind the mask. Everything Obama says or does is an end to his personal agendas. People believe that Obama wants to help them. Obama cares nothing about the American people. Obama lives in the circle of Jeremiah Wright and those who won't even recognize the Pledge of Allegiance. This is not someone I want dealing with foreign policy issue.

Tom C. said...

I have the YouTube link of the Catholic Vote video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v
=61wj4tJICcc

Eyes watered.

Pass this on to those Catholics who forget what it means to be a Catholic Christian. It's not about you. It's about God and others.

caem said...

Below is a link to an article explaining how the Democrats caused the mortage crisis!!!

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0

MCcain is the Guy we need now - to lead us out of this mess!

Tom C. said...

Tommy,

There were several people on McCain's list.

Palin was picked because she has a reformist record and is a Maverick taking on her own party.

THAT is why he picked her. He saw a part of himself in her. She also is bipartisan like McCain. And, she has courage like McCain.

I think Lieberman is nice guy and would have been good on foreign policy, BUT he would have lost McCain the election and he knew that. He needed someone like him but someone who could rally the troops and attract independents.

Of course an Obama supporter like yourself would want him to pick Lieberman because you want to win. Just like I prayed that Obama would pick Biden, a turncoat Catholic. Do you really believe that our prayers go totally unanswered? There is time left in your life to dig out of the mud and start thinking of others before it is too late.

Rasmussen is back even. This election is up for grabs.

Tommy, both those on the left and right are not perfect. But, those on the right know that they are not perfect unlike the arrogance of the left that has no shame or guilt, making one excuse after another for their sins rather than admitting their sins, asking for forgiveness, and trying harder.

techno said...

Here are some obscure or believe-it-or-not historical facts regarding the Presidency and Vice-Presidency: 1) the Democrats have not nominated a sitting governor as VP since 1924 (Charles Bryan-Nebraska) and before Sarah it was Spiro Agnew (Maryland) in 1968 (funny the media is always touting governors as worthy candidates) 2) On the Democratic side in 180 years no sitting VP who served only 1 full term as VP and ran for President in the next election cycle has ever won. In the 152 year history of the Republican Party it also has never happened. If Sarah does prevail in 2008 and then runs for President in 2012 and wins she will be the first of either major party to accomplish this. 3) since 1900 only 1 sitting Democratic President who ran for re-election has lost (Carter 1980) and for the Republicans-- it has happened three times (Taft 1912, Hoover 1932and Bush 1992). 4) No Presidential candidate other than a Democrat or Republican has earned an electoral vote since George Wallace in 1968 (46).5)In the history of Democratic Party no candidate for VP has lost and then ran for President in the next election cycle and won-same for the Republicans; in fact only 1 losing Democratic VP has lost (FDR 1920) and then ran for President and later won (1932). For the Republicans it has never happened. So if Sarah was to lose in 2008 and then gain the Presidential nomination in 2012 and then go on to win she would also make history. 6)The last Democratic nominee for President who did not attend law school was Jimmy Carter who ran for President in 1976; the last Democratic ticket in which neither was a lawyer was Lyndon Johnson and Hubert Humphrey (1964)7) Since 1952 of the Democrats who have won the Presidency (Johnson, Carter and Clinton) they have all been from the Deep South. 8) Whether Obama or McCain wins, it will be the first senator who has ascended to the presidency since JFK in 1960; 9)Hillary Clinton is the first woman in American history to win a Presidential primary contest but not the first woman to have her name placed in nomination at the convention (Margaret Chase Smith (R) 1964); 10) Sarah is the only VP selection in the history of America that was as unknown equally to the opposition as well as to members of her own national party and I firmly believe that she may go down in American history as the only VP candidate that ever secured a VP nomination directly and primarily through an active campaign over the internet by dedicated bloggers, through an active, promotional campaign by radio talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Dennis Prager and the musings of professional pundits like Bill Kristol, Fred Barnes and Larry Kudlow. This was the perfect storm. (Reports have it that not even one member of McCain's inner circle favored her selection.) That the MSM, the Democrats and even McCain's closest advisors missed this phenomenon is a tribute to the moxie of John McCain but even more a condemnation of the Democrat's false assumption that McCain would pick a 'boring white guy' when all the signals sent from the Democrat convention presaged that McCain could possibly select a woman. (I made that prediction myself right after Biden was selected.It's not rocket science.) That not one registered Democrat among the millions of Democrats in America or their minions in the MSM ever planned for this eventuality or even read this blog as the events were unfolding in the wee hours of Augusut 29 is truly amazing and dumbfounding. You snooze, you lose. Enjoy your time in the wilderness my friends, if you don't win!

techno said...

I just heard Rush Limbaugh on Fox News tonight present his theory why the McCain campaign is sequestering Sarah from questions by the media. Rush suggests that it is not because the campaign is scared that she will not perform well in front of the media and it is not because she is not conversant in domestic or foreign affairs, but that the McCain campaign wants to keep her 'on message' (in lockstep with McCain) so as not to distract from the first debate on Friday; not to be like Biden who strays off the reservation at least twice a day, where the Obama campaign has to engage in daily damage control. As usual Rush, you are absolutely brilliant. Rush, also stated that he wanted to see 'Sarah unleashed.' I think we all do. Folks, I don't think we've seen anything yet! Is an October surprise in the works?

techno said...

The hardest thing to do is try to quantify why someone like Sarah has had such a huge impact on such a wide audience, when she was virtually unknown 3 weeks ago. Many observers call it charisma, but I would like to go deeper and get to the heart of her attraction and persuasiveness. So here are 10 reasons that she connects so well: 1) she possesses the charm or savoir faire of an aristocrat without being perceived as elitist; 2) she is plucky and resilient and we know she will never quit; 3) she is generous and charitable-has McCain ever had a more adoring fan? 4) she dresses elegantly and through her appearance exudes confidence and success; 5) she says what she means and means what she says with it all being communicated with the impeccable timing of a Broadway performer; 6)her empathy overwhelms you- 'she feels your pain' as Clinton would say; 7) she can be so witty and hilarious, but not in a crude or vulgar way; men just eat that up; 8) she possesses the smile of an angel and the focus of Tiger Woods; 9)she possesses a vigor and endurance that will not flag until the mission is completed; 10) she is a leader who commands undivided attention, a person you would wholeheartedly follow into battle even if it were to the gates of hell and you had to put your life on the line.

TrueRedHead said...

Oooh, good thought about "Sarah Unleashed" and an "October Surprise"!! Think about the way the media (and the world) was kept in the dark about Sarah to begin with. Could just be another stealth attack in the works!

tom paine said...

tom c.,

You are evading the facts and the truth per McCain's VP choice.

If McCain actually WANTED Lieberman or Ridge to be his running mate, the inescapable conclusion is that McCain choose Gov. Palin for political expediancy at the expense of his principles.

You continue to make dumb-headed and incorrect conclusions about my political preferences. If McCain had taken his first choice Leiberman as his running mate, that would have sealed the deal for me and I absolutely would not have voted for McCain. Leiberman has some good qualities but appears to have been bought, signed, sealed, and delivered by the Jewish lobby. He would have no qualms about getting our nation into a global nuclear war to appease Israel. That is NOT the responsibility of our nation.

Even an unknown and inexperienced entity such as Gov. Palin who often appears to be repeating words and phrases in her sing-song voice is to me a better option than a man like Leiberman who seems to put a foreign nation's interests ahead of his own.

SULZBACHMC said...

Working with foreign powers, we need a President and Vice President who does not back down. Teddy Roosevelt was the one that used an old West African proverb ""Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far."

Sarah Palin and John McCain has the reputation of standing up to anyone, no matter who they are.

We have had leaders go to Washington without the foreign experience and they managed better than those who did, provided they always stuck to the motto of Teddy Roosevelt. Case in point. Jimmy Carter. Carter did great getting Egypt talking to Israel but later, he was at a lost on how to deal with terrorists in Iran who kidnapped Americans.

A leader must be consistant. Palin amd McCain are consistant.

Abraham Lincoln was one that was always consistant. Even in the mist of a civil war, he still managed to buy Alaska from the Russians, get aid for the North and work with the expanding west. He knew how to delegate because Seward and other members of his cabinet were able to help when called upon. He knew how to find the right people for the job and if they are not with the program, kick them out.

Our dynamic duo of McCain and Palin has demonstated this as well. McCain has found the right people to work with him. I was so proud of him when he drop kicked the former Senator from Texas from his campaign staff. McCain stood up to him. Palin stood up to the old boy network in Alaska.

Both candidates are going to do great with foreign matters. Plus it is great to have a running mate who knows energy policy. We need that in this time and age.

God Bless John McCain and Sarah Palin.

Jan said...

I read an article from the LA TImes the other day titled "Into The Wild of Wasilla, Alaska, where Sarah Palin Once Ruled." The writer was amazed to see a moose in the road--imagine that. What bugged me, though, was the word "ruled." Now, like I said, I'm really not into politics, but it seems to me that people are elected to serve the people, not rule them. I do serve on the Board of 3 small organizations (2 are clubs) and do volunteer work for them. I know in the 2 clubs (which are not governments, of course), whether I was on the Board or just a club member, that if a Board is elected that tries to rule the club, the members become restless and unhappy, and are overturned at the next election. If the Board is serving the members, the members are happy, supportive, the club gets lots more done in a positive way, and the Board tends to stay in office. So I read the Preamble to the Constitution again, and it seems to me that it is describing leaders who serve the people, not rule them. I went to Wikipedia and searched for the purpose of government. It gave me a history of different types of government, but one section says:

"In the period of the eighteenth century, usually called the Enlightenment, a new justification of the European state developed. Jean-Jacques Rousseau's social contract theory states that governments draw their power from the governed, its 'sovereign' people (usually a certain ethnic group, and the state's limits are legitimated theoretically as that people's lands, although that is often not, rarely exactly, the case), that no person should have absolute power, and that a legitimate state is one which meets the needs and wishes of its citizens. These include security, peace, economic development and the resolution of conflict. Eventually, the divine right of kings fell out of favor and this idea ascended; it formed the basis for modern democracy."

Meeting the needs and wishes of its citizens--the basis for democracy--is serving the people, the right of kings is not. Perhaps the LA TImes just picked the wrong word for their article, but then again maybe liberals really are looking for a "king" instead of someone who is willing to serve the people (and has shown that she does, which is one reason I think she has such a positive rating in her state). Maybe that's part of the reason for the hatred.

Mountain Mama said...

Good morning, everyone!

If you've enjoyed blogging here, how about honoring this blogsite's creator, Adam Brickley?

Just click on "Surprise Party," within the newest blogsite article, and make a well-deserved donation to help this young man.

Mountain Mama said...

I agree totally with how the McCain campaign is taking the initiative by calling OFF the regular campaign schedule and the entire campaign, until this economic crisis is addressed properly!

WOW! Hey, Palinistas!
What can we Palin-for-VP bloggers do, to take some initiative and help the campaign?

One thing I did was to write NOW at www.johnmccain.com to commend the McCain campaign for calling off the campaign and working directly re. the economy with the White House, Congress, and the Obama campaign.

What else can we do?

Adam! Techno! Erin! Knowitall!
Jill, tom c., Trueredhead, caem, graceexplosion, and huskyonspeed!---even Tom Paine! (You have some good ideas, when you stop calling people "idiots," etc.----very horrid when one has disabled children, see.):

What can WE do from this blogsite that would also take the initiative and show we're pulling for McCain and Palin, as well as for our country's economy?

(And don't forget:
click on "Surprise Party" on the Home Page here, to honor Adam.)

tom paine said...

tom c., said "Rasmussen is back even. This election is up for grabs."

Not sure why you would quote incorrect numbers, but as of today even Rasmussen (who tends to favor the GOP) has Obama at 49% and Mccain at 47%.

Fairly certain that you will find some way/reason to dispute this so let me quote it EXACTLY as Rasmussen listed it:

"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows Barack Obama attracting 49% of the vote while John McCain earns 47%. It’s the first time in more than two weeks that Obama has enjoyed a lead larger than a single percentage point (see trends). Both men are now viewed favorably by 55% and Rasmussen Markets data currently gives Obama a 54.4% chance of victory (see market results for key states)."

So what do YOU, "tommy c" do now...fire Rasmussen???

tom paine said...

Well tommy c.,

It just keeps getting worse and worse doesn't it? Now the poll numbers indicate that McCain is falling like a rock and may be as many as 5-7 points behind!

Gee, do you suppose this has anything to do with Sen McCain wanting to call off the debate?

My guess is that if the numbers get really bad for him, McCain will request that the entire election be delayed.

Hopefully, logical Americans will see thru McCain's grandstand play. Sen McCain had no issue with ignoring Washington while we were (and are) burning $350,000,000.00 PER DAY in Iraq and Americans were getting killed and maimed as well.

It's more than a bit suspicious that McCain has suddenly gotten religion per doing his duty in Washington when his campaign appears to be in serious free fall.

Actually, I doubt that it's McCain calling these shots. Just as McCain had no clue about Gov. Palin when he was talked into choosing her. It's more likely that McCain's inner circle of lobbyist handlers are behind the current plan...hoping it will divert the American people from wanting to do the obvious...get rid of the party in power!

That is the reality of the situation. I hope that this is allowed to be posted.

Erin said...

mama said: "What can WE do from this blogsite that would also take the initiative and show we're pulling for McCain and Palin, as well as for our country's economy?"

Well, I know this will sound trite to some here, but I'm praying. I am a Christian, and I know I should pray more for the actual elections than I do, but this has me on my knees more than usual. As for getting our support publicized, I'm spreading my thoughts via word of mouth.

My personal belief is that this was an incredibly courageous move on McCain's part. Perhaps he wouldn't have done it if he'd had more time, but I think he has a decent shot of helping them work something out if the Dems will move past the fact he's the nominee for the other side.