Sarah Palin represents the feminist triumph
Bookworm on Sep 05 2008 at 7:42 am | Filed under: Feminism, Sarah Palin
After pointing out how ignoble the attack on Palin is coming from the self-appointed coastal elites, Victor Davis Hanson sums up how Palin is the ultimate feminist triumph:
Sarah Palin is the emblem of what feminism was supposed to be all about: an unafraid, independent, audacious woman, who soared on her own merits without the aid of a patriarchal jumpstart, high-brow matrimonial tutelage and capital, and old-boy liaisons and networking.
Email This Post To A Friend
62 Responses to “Sarah Palin represents the feminist triumph”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Last I checked, the GOP and conservatives were for experience before they were against it. Now Jonah Goldberg is calling for Palin at the top of the ticket, on the basis of a couple of speeches. And conservatives consider this guy an intellectual, and themselves intellectually consistent. Please!
DG, Palin has experience. She’s managed things. She’s negotiated massive business deals. She’s taken principled stands resulting in the downfall of corrupt politicians (on a bipartisan basis, I might add). Obama has done bubkas. He’s an armchair intellectual with a little bit of rabble rousing in his past. His political experience has amounted to serving 8 years in a state collegial setting, during which he abstained more than he acted. In the Senate, he’s done almost nothing but run for President. When pressed for his executive experience, all he was able to cite was the fact that he’s run a successful primary campaign.
Both Obama and Palin are fully capable of learning the information they need about the world around them. Palin, however, has already proved that she has the ability to act on that information. Further, at a purely political level, I prefer her policy positions and worldview to his.
I like the way that Obama’s (Mr. “Zero”) own campaign staff can’t even explain what the heck a community organizer does or accomplishes…other than “talking to people”. Even Sarah Palin’s PTA experience is better qualification than that!
Living in Chicagoland, where the number of summertime murders by South Side gang-bangers (i.e., his former constituents) was almost twice that of American deaths in Iraq during the same period, methinks Obama missed a wonderful opportunity to show us some solid accomplishments as a “community organizer”, but…ah well. He did manage to burn through $100 million with no-discernible benefit, however (benefits to friends excepted, of course), so I can understand why he feels that he is eminently qualified to serve in Washington. Some of us have a different point of view about that, however.
Bookworm, you are comparing two lightweights and pointing out tiny differences. The reality is that if experience really mattered, the GOP could have picked Hutchison or, better, Fiorina or Whitman. All of whom have a lot more experience than Palin. Whittman ran a company that employs directly or indirectly (via its eBay sellers) more than double the population of Alaska. This decision to pick Palin was not about experience, it was to throw red meat at conservatives. Stop pretending it’s something else.
Danny, there is no question that Obama has less experience than McCain as a legislator. Sometimes the neophyte turns inexperience into advantage, and this usually occurs when the electorate wants to kick the bums out. This is how Palin rose to the AK Governorship, and it could be how Obama becomes President.
dg you are swimming against a strong current and you are floundering badly.
After McCain’s speech last night the American people have the starkest contrast. McCain has been tested to the depths of his soul. He had to go back and review his entire value system in one of the worst circumstances imagineable. As he admitted he went to Hanoi as one man (and I can tell you from Navy friends who knew him before, and I did not, that he was not pleasant) but he came out another.
As we look out at the world that stares back at us, I think most Americans will opt to be led by the man who has faced the crucible and emerged with his character and honor intact.
Then we have his record in the Senate. I have disagreed with McCain on many issues; but, I cannot deny that he has consistently stood for reform. Anyone who thinks Washington doesn’t need reform should be called Rip Van Winkle.
Your fellow simply does not measure up on so many counts that there should be a mercy rule such as they have in Little League baseball. McCain should be prevented from drawing more than X number of comparisons.
Oldflyer, that is why we have elections. We’ll see who is swimming against the current when the results are in. As I have noted elsewhere, unlike the highly unreliable polling data, the decision markets (eg., Intrade) do have a history of reliable predictive value, and they still have Obama ahead by a comfortable margin. Those that put their money where their mouth is, are favoring my arguments over yours… And only time will tell who is really correct.
dg, I think you just changed the subject. A few moments ago you were arguing that Obama’s inexperinence was an advantage. Now you are citing “decision markets” as predictors of the election before the effect of Palin’s and McCain’s convention appearances have even been factored.
Everyone, incuding presumably Intrade, was gaga over the fact that the BOH extravagnza drew 38 mil viewers; now we know that Palin topped that without a rock concert, fireworks display or phony temple. Apparently so did McCain.
Let’s have one discussion at a time. I just pointed out that McCain had life and character defining experiences that went well beyond occupying a spot in the Senate; experiences that will resonate with the American people. So, do you acknowledge the fact, or will you pretend it doesn’t exist?
>>This decision to pick Palin was not about experience,>> IN YOUR OPINION.
dg, you know well that Palin was picked for a variety of reasons. No one can have every desired ingredient at the desired level- but obviously McCain went down the list of what he wanted his VP to have and felt that Palin had the most of certain qualities important to him. Obviously also by the joy she was greeted with on the one hand, and the near frantic and vicious reception on the other side, his choice has resonated deeply and seems to be a good one. Many of his more “experienced” political options would have been met with yawns, and you know that. She has invigorated his campaign and made a truly exciting ticket of complementary skills and attributes.
Palin was picked for these reasons, in no particular order:
She is a fighter of corruption- even in her own party.
She is an expert in energy, particularly oil.
She is a self-made person.
She comes from solid working class roots.
She is in touch with the land and nature and values both.
She is a devoted mother and wife.
She did not abort an “imperfect” and inconveniently timed baby, nor did she pressure her daughter to do the same- though the timing of her daughter’s pregnancy was not ideal- to say the least.
She stands by her family and is consistent with her values.
She is not afraid to take on the “big boys”.
When she takes on the big boys it is with grace and humor.
She is lovely and a charismatic.
She supports the 2nd Amendment.
She is the parent of a soldier, as is McCain. They will not sacrifice other people’s children.
She will advocate for people with special needs.
She is a friend to our ally Israel.
She is unambiguous about the need to fight evil and to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power.
She has governed a state.
She is wildly popular in her state, the highest rated governor in the country with more than an 80% approval rating.
She is a Washington outsider.
She is bright, personable, articulate and a quick study.
She is also going for the #2 slot.
Obama is an excellent speaker and reader of teleprompters.
He has a deep and movie star quality voice.
He is confident and doesn’t stagger in embarassment when called “the one” or when making messiah-like statements that he will “heal the planet and recede the oceans”.
He is personable and charismatic.
He has run a campaign with a staff of 2500.
He is going for the #1 slot.
Let me amend-
Sometimes soldiers die. With McCain a former soldier, and with both as parents of soldiers, McCain and Palin will have daily reminders to not engage in conflict unnecessarily or to sacrifice our troops lightly. This is what I meant though it did not come out sounding that way.
Oldflyer, sorry, I did not mean to imply that I personally thought inexperience is inherently an asset. I guess I was a little too fast and loose with my language. Speaking for myself, I would prefer to vote for the candidate that has the greater experience, all other factors being equal. And McCain certainly has a compelling life story that will resonate with a great many Americans. I am merely observing that this could be an environment in which a light resume could be an asset, and Obama’s lead in the decision markets–which has remained substantial and stable for quite some time, and which has had ample time to incorporate the Palin pick and RNC speeches–would support that contention.
Oh- and some more additions (sorry I am trying to multi-task)
she appeals to women. Women can relate to her.
And she is very attractive.
>>And she is very attractive.>>
So she also appeals to men.
Lulu, of the 21 items or qualities you mention only 4 relate to experience. You are kind of proving my case that the main reason for picking her had nothing to do with her experience, so making her resume out to be thicker than it is really is beside the point.
I go to RCP every day and keep an eye on those Intrade stats on the election. Obama’s “stock” has been diminishing, McCain increasing. Over the next 60 days they could be flat. This wouldn’t surprise me. If I were a betting man, I’d have put my money on McCain a month ago.
I have my own doubts about Palin’s experience but I have greater doubts about Obama’s experience and fitness for the position he seeks — and frankly I wrote off Biden in 1988 and haven’t change my opinion since — and am much more willing to take a chance on McCain/Palin than Obama/Biden.
dg) This decision to pick Palin was not about experience
1lulu) you know well that Palin was picked for a variety of reasons
dg) Lulu, of the 21 items or qualities you mention only 4 relate to experience
Have problems with reading comprehensions, dg?
Or are you just going to go on about “nononononono…only experience counts”?
dg,
Can you list the reasons Obama was selected and how many of them relate to experience?
Thanks
Zhombre, actually Obama’s stock on Intrade has been basically flat for the last month. What you are referring to is a sudden drop in the stock today following the conclusion of the RNC. It is currently at 57.8, having traded around 60 since early August; this is the first time it has closed below 58 since early June. McCain’s stock is trading at a 52 week high, but is still at 42.5. The 15+ point spread might be made up or it might not be. Currently, traders are giving Obama nearly a 58% chance of winning this thing, which is still better than McCain’s chances or the even chances implied by the popular polls.
Lulu, Obama was not selected. He was elected in a Democratic primary. You’ll have to ask a bunch of Democrats why that happened.
I’d still like an answer. What are his qualifications for the phenomenal responsibility of being president of the United States, particularly at a time of war, and how many of these qualifications relate to experience? I am asking you because I cannot ask everyone in the USA who voted for him, you have been critical of Palin’s qualifications and you have defended Obama here often.
I will assume that a failure on your part to provide this list means you are having trouble finding his qualifications, experience based or no.
SueK – “>>And she is very attractive.>> So she also appeals to men.”
After all these years being told by (some) women that they were voting for this or that candidate because he is/was a hunk, we guys finally, finally, finally get to turn our brains off and vote for eye candy.
The response by liberal feminists to Palin has been fascinating to observe.
Liberal feminists have always struck me as being resentful and old – not old necessarily in years but old in spirit. They are always angry. They never seem to just relax and let their guard down – their whole purpose in life seems to be to remind everyone how bad men and America area.
Then comes Palin. She has achieved everything that we were told we needed to as women but she exudes this joy and sense of youth – the kind of youth that lasts, even into old age.
And what is the reaction from liberal feminists? Anger. Seething anger accompanied by scowling and yes, bitterness.
Even if McCain/Palin do not win, the elevation of Palin to national attention has made it much more difficult for liberal feminists to convince other women that we need to be like them in order to succeed. And that alone is a welcome change.
Deana
Deanna…
Have you read “Who Stole Feminism?” by Suzanne Hoff Summers?
Good read. Slow, but enlightening. Right up there with “Liberal Facism”, but on a different plane.
>>…we guys finally, finally, finally get to turn our brains off and vote for eye candy>>
About the “hunk” thing and the “eye candy” thing…
As a reason to vote for someone, it’s pretty appalling, but assuming that you give reasonable consideration to the underlying principles of the person…what the hey…you get a twofer! What bothers me, of course, is that “underlying principles” part….I’m not particularly certain that enough people give it much thought.
I’ve been checking on a couple of PUMA sites, and they are _angry_! They will vote for McCAin because Hillary isn’t on the ticket and Palin is. The abortion issue is just sort of “oh well” as an issue – they really don’t seem to worry too much in spite of all the sturm and drang. While I’m happy that they’ll vote for McCain instead of Obama, I can’t help but be offended by the fact that it’s the simple presence on one ticket or the other that makes their decision. I find that totally unacceptable as an election rationale.
The President and VP can’t overturn Roe v. Wade. Some future SCOTUS may do that and even if that occurs it will represent the beginning not the end of the abortion debate. The issue of abortion will revert back to the states and people to be decided, where it belonged in the first place, pre federal judicial fiat. Even the more astute commentators on the left have noted that winning in court may prove a phyrric victory in the long run if popular opinion remains unreconciled to the decision.
>>even if that occurs it will represent the beginning not the end of the abortion debate.>>
I agree, but it’s been that whole “feminist” rallying thing…
You point is good, though. The pro-abortionists go on and on about how “we all agree” that it’s a woman’s right…but if it got into the legislatures instead of being decided in the courts???? Personally, I’m not so sure how it would turn out.
I hope that you know that I was kidding, Suek…Ok, well…kinda, sorta anyway.
I hope that you know that I was kidding, Suek…Ok, well…kinda, sorta anyway.
Hey…I’m part French, OK. Can’t help myself when it comes to art appreciation.
Don’t back down, Danny. Don’t let the PCs get to you. Male and female He created them…it’s a _good_ thing!
Strong men require strong women – and vice versa. The problem has been that our culture has taught women to be weak – as if that were a virtue. The result is that men have become weaker, because they didn’t need to be strong. Then the feminists turned it around, telling women they were strong and didn’t need those weakling men…which has made men even weaker. When they teach female equality in schools, they don’t encourage girls to compete on equal terms with boys, they restrict and prohibit boy activities, making it easy for girls to win. Not good for either. It’s not good to “dumb down” education, and it’s not good to “lower the bar” to make it easier for the weaker of either sex to compete. Keep the bars high – and if you can’t meet the standards of one occupation, look for another. There are plenty of jobs that require brains not brawn…if a job needs brawn, then let a brawny guy do it. If a job needs brains, let a brainy person – either sex – do it. Develop and use people’s talents – whatever they may be! Viva la difference!!!
Sorry…didn’t mean to get carried away. I gotta wonder though…we encourage the “metrosexual” male, encourage the dominant female, and say hurrah to homosexuality. Pretty soon, we’ll end up with worker bees, drones and queen bees. All working in the socialist hive. Yech.
Danny:
You have no reason to apologize!! Listen, few things make liberal feminists more angry than a red-blooded man who notices a woman’s beauty but here is the dirty little secret: women love to be loved and their hearts always melt a little when a man appreciates whatever it is that makes them attractive.
Suek:
No, I have not read that book. Hadn’t even heard of it! But I’m started to get very interested in this chasm that exists between women so I’m thinking I would like to read it.
It’s interesting – I’ve worked in predominantly male dominated fields and now I’ve gone back to school again to become a nurse so I’m with women all the time. And I’m telling you, if I absolutely had to choose between the two, I’d work with men every time. Both have their plusses and minuses but at least with men, you don’t have to put up with the constant anger and viciousness. Yes men get angry and yes they can be vicious but it isn’t standard operating procedures, if you know what I mean.
Thanks for the suggestion!
Deana
The reality is that if experience really mattered, the GOP could have picked Hutchison or, better, Fiorina or Whitman.
Reality doesn’t matter to the Left, but it does Matter to the Gop. Which is why the GOP listening to the Left’s consideration of what is “real” is rather unrealistic and retarded, all in all.
dg, you know well that Palin was picked for a variety of reasons.
like the WMD issue the Left is addicted over, what matters in reality is their version of it, not the actual events of reality.
Danny, the only thing that matters is the code of chivalry. You can find a woman attractive and hot, if you wish, so long as you serve as her protector and knight. Meaning, you kill who she wants killed and you protect her from those that want to harm her.
Attractiveness as an issue of sex only matters if you are married to her or are considering an affair with her.
The Left doesn’t like chivalry, they don’t like protecting the weak, nor do they wish to serve anything greater than they themselves. Look at VIetnam, look at Iraq, look at Iran, just take a look around the country, even, the world if nothing else works for you.
Zhombre, actually Obama’s stock on Intrade has been basically flat for the last month. What you are referring to is a sudden drop in the stock today following the conclusion of the RNC.
See, Zhombre, you just let your opponent choose the battlefield and its environment, like the Romans allowed for Hannibal Barca.
It’s never advantageous to fight on the ground that your opponent pre-chose.
Btw, what dg means by “experience” is simply “Democrat experiences”. It doesn’t mean anything for Palin, cause Palin doesn’t have the experience of a corrupt, narcissistic, politician with delusions of megalomania. She doesn’t have experience, and so she wasn’t chosen for her experience. You see.
dg
Lulu, Obama was not selected. He was elected in a Democratic primary. You’ll have to ask a bunch of Democrats why that happened.
See, this is what I am talking about. When Dg says “elected”, you would think he means having won based upon a count of individual votes. But Obama didn’t win the nomination by counting all the votes. He won by acclamation.
Not even the votes of the delegates were all counted, which doesn’t even include the votes of the actual Democrat “people”. So why should we ask the Democrats why that happened when their “votes” had nothing to do with deciding Obama’s selection?
All of whom have a lot more experience than Palin
Just because the Democrats are worried about a VP with a lack of experience, due to their candidate having a blank slate, doesn’t mean the Republicans should act like Democrats. No matter what the nihilistic Oz like sit on the fence opinion says on that matter.
Democrats chose Biden, who has a lot of “experience”, one might say, on political corruption and infighting, to be certain. Obama needs somebody like Biden to not get out of the DC circle.
Suddenly the Republicans have to be the same way? We have to obsess over “experience” just because the Democrats do?
The Republicans certainly did not choose a VP pick based out of a need to armor themselves with the “experience of a Washington insider and infighter”. They chose somebody with soul and character. A fireball. Somebody designed to destroy the obstacles that will be put in their path BY people like Biden and other DC Senators that have been there for decades and decades.
Somebody designed to destroy the obstacles that will be put in their path BY people like Biden and other DC Senators that have been there for decades and decades.
Obviously when that is your goal, you don’t really want a VP with the “experiences” of a Biden or other DC insider.
This is like that gag about how the Left and Democrats think change, by itself, is a good thing and never bad. But as folks at the Convention mentioned, there’s change and then there is good change. Bad change and good change.
Bad experiences and good experiences. It’s something the Democrats don’t like to hear, given their religious dogma and little political games played with politically correct words.
Copied and pasted from Flopping Aces…
“What’s the difference between Sarah Palin and Barack Obama?”
“One is a well turned-out, good-looking, and let’s be honest, pretty sexy piece of eye-candy.
“The other one kills her own food.”
Heh.
YM…are you kidding? Me kill what she wants killed?
Let me put it this way, I suspect that the MSM /Democrat media is going to find out what happens when they get between a Mama Grizzley and her cubs. And, hoo-boy, they sure did, didn’t they?
By the way, breath easy everyone – my red male testosteronated blood still flows in my arteries and should for quite a few years, yet. Thank you for your concern, though. I now know who my real friends are.
Palin’s hot stuff! Even hotter when she’s got that M-16 to her shoulder, dontchathink?
Y, Obama got the most votes. And you shouldn’t count MI because he wasn’t on the ballot. The acclamation process was a bone thrown to acknowledge Hillary, and reflected the fact that she hadn’t conceded prior to the convention. The Democratic Party left the old process of selecting candidates undemocratically in smoke-filled back rooms even before the GOP did. You should not misrepresent the facts to make Obama look illegitimate, even if you do not like him. That’s just dishonest.
dg, why don’t you answer my question about Obama’a qualifications and experience (questions 18 and 21)? Why do you defend your choice of president by attacking the other side but you cannot respond to a simple question as to how Obama himself is qualified for the job he seeks. I told you before that if you don’t answer I have no choice but to assume an admission on your part that Obama has no qualifications and experience to defend. By your sudden silence I see I was right.
>>The Democratic Party left the old process of selecting candidates undemocratically in smoke-filled back rooms even before the GOP did.>>
There you go again.
Superdelegates. Overriding the popular vote if necessary in their judgement.
Those old smoke-filled rooms still exist – figuratively even if not literally. The republican party, on the other hand, counts votes. Real votes.
There are accusations, by the way, that the caucaus states were stolen by Obama – that he bussed in students to strong arm the caucauses. I don’t really understand the process, so I can’t really judge, but apparently the accusation is based on – among other things – the location of the caucauses, the interstates, the bus routes and the location of colleges/universities. I have no idea if it’s being investigated…it would have to be a function of the DNC, and they don’t seem so inclined.
I forgot…it _is_ noteworthy that Obama won based on caucus states, Hillary won on states that held ballot votes.
You should not misrepresent the facts to make Obama look illegitimate, even if you do not like him. That’s just dishonest.
It’s not dishonest to say that there is nobody to ask, contrary to your self-proclaimed claims, dg, when there was no vote tally for Obama. Not every vote was counted, for the Dems don’t care about counting votes.
You should not misrepresent that Obama was actually nominated, rather than elected. Elections means every vote is counted. Nominations mean just that.
Nominations are done by the party, its elite delegates and reps, while elections are conducted by the power of the people.
If you want to talk about dishonesty, dg, you might want to talk about
Lulu, Obama was not selected. He was elected in a Democratic primary. You’ll have to ask a bunch of Democrats why that happened.
how there’s nobody to ask when Obama is nominated by choice, not votes.
The acclamation process was a bone thrown to acknowledge Hillary, and reflected the fact that she hadn’t conceded prior to the convention.
Just because you want to give out excuses for the facts, does not mean somebody has been misrepresenting them in order to make you provide such excuses.
Y, Obama got the most votes.
Let me do you a favor and explain to you that “got the most votes” doesn’t mean an “election”.
Acclaiming someone as the winner, without counting all the votes, is not an election. This is so in case you continue to misrepresent the situation by continuing the argument.
YM…are you kidding? Me kill what she wants killed?
That’s what it comes down to. Any person that swears loyalty to a clause, a person, or a nation will eventually have to kill the enemies of that cause, person, or nation. Or stand forsworn.
Try reading Grim’s explanation of the issue, if it works better for you
Don’t forget to watch Red State Update’s Palin video, Danny, if you haven’t already. That stuff is funny.
Y, show me the vote count, verified by an independent source showing that Hillary got more votes. Even Hillary’s team would concede that at the end of the primary she’d received fewer votes. SueK talks of superdelegates, but Hillary couldn’t even begin to claim a majority of votes without them. Do you also want to argue the world is flat? This is a moronic argument you’re making. And I have no idea what you would call the primaries, if not elections…
SueK, a little history for you. Both parties used conventions as smoke-filled backrooms to pick candidates, a process involving party elites, until 1972. That was the year that McGovern forced the Democrats to open up their convention and rely upon the primaries to select candidates. The GOP QUICKLY FOLLOWED THE DEM’S LEAD ON THIS. That the Democrats still use superdelegates is indeed a travesty, but it is far better than the system in place in the 60s and earlier in either party.
Lulu, I don’t have much to offer by way of prior qualification for Obama. But Ronald Reagan is regarded as having a great job as the leader of the 7th largest economy and political entity in the world (California) having only served as head of the SAG–kind of like a community organizer in Hollywood. And Abraham Lincoln had little more experience (and many historians still consider his the lightest Presidential candidate’s reume) than Obama, and we know how that turned out. Look, I would prefer more qualifications, since the corporate world demands it, but it’s really a weak indicator. One interesting final thought: the Chairman of Heidrick and Struggles, the pre-eminent recruiter of CEOs in the world said in a BBC interview that the most common flaw that causes failure amongst CEOs is a belief that they know everything. When I listen to the dogmatic positions of conservatives I fear that most candidates coming out of that field would fail the H&S test. The world is too complicated to be encapsulated by one narrow ideology.
Y, show me the vote count, verified by an independent source showing that Hillary got more votes.
Vote counts are about all the votes, by a majority or a plurality.
If you count 51% of the votes for one side, with 10% left uncounted, that’s not an election if you just stop there. That’s a nomination, an arbitrary nomination.
It doesn’t matter whether Hillary got more votes. What matters is the process, the process of election, which you claim falsely for Obama’s candidacy position. He didn’t get elected, as you claim. He was acclaimed and put into that slot by the aristocrats of the Democrat party, absence any real tally of popular votes. Or even a full tally of delegate votes.
What you should have said, dg, if your claims of being against political hypocrisy on both sides were true, is that you rejected the Democrat’s “count all the votes” when they liked it and “don’t count all the votes cause it doesn’t matter” when it is convenient.
But no, you decide to stick up for the Democrats, your party and your candidate. It is typical, but at least be honest and open about it.
SueK talks of superdelegates, but Hillary couldn’t even begin to claim a majority of votes without them. Do you also want to argue the world is flat? This is a moronic argument you’re making. And I have no idea what you would call the primaries, if not elections…
You think it moronic only because it challenges your prejudiced views of what the Democrats actually are.
That is not moronic, that is only inconvenient, to you that is.
DG – “Ronald Reagan is regarded as having (done?) a great job as the leader of the 7th largest economy and political entity in the world (California) having only served as head of the SAG–kind of like a community organizer in Hollywood.”
Now, DG, I have to believe that you know better than this, so this must be a deliberate misrepresentation. The SAG was/is the leading Hollywood union, of which Reagan was the executive officer (salaries, negotiations, results) etc., during which he successfully fought huge battles to sever the communist influence in the SAG and other Hollywood organizations. That was no mean feat for that period.
Also, you (it must be) deliberately omitted that Ronald Reagan was a very successful governor of California, the U.S.’s largest state economy, during very tumultuous times. Again, he was the senior executive. However, I note that it is the Democrat talking point that somehow Palin was only a mayor, not a governor. This is a deliberate misrepresentation. We see through this – please don’t take us for idiots.
Sorry, Dg. I must apologize – you were referring to Reagan’s stint as governor and my fingers responded faster than my brain. Oops!
However, you do realize that the omission of Palin’s tenure as governor and the emphasis on her job as PTA leader and mayor of podunkville by the Democrat opposition is no accident, right?
Danny, where does dg say he is speaking of Reagan’s governor time?
Here! “But Ronald Reagan is regarded as having a great job as the leader of the 7th largest economy and political entity in the world (California)…”
My criticism of DG’s (I think she is a she, by the way) position regarding Reagan’s role as union boss still stands, but on the question of recognizing Reagan’s role as governor, I was wrong.
Danny, from an executive experience standpoint, what is the difference between Obama and Reagan’s work prior to elected office? I understand that you would believe that Reagan was more successful than Obama because he pursued goals that you agree with and, in your opinion, had more success achieving those goals (although it is hard to quantify). But aren’t their respective roles and responsibilities similar? I mean, they both were responsible for looking after the interests of a given constituency and had a P&L to manage in that effort. My point is merely that Reagan’s executive experience before ascending to the California governorship was really very light, and it had ZERO PREDICTIVE VALUE on how he would perform in that role. Your thoughts?
Y, I don’t know what to say to your posts. I went back to look at some of the end-game scenarios toward the end of the primaries earlier this year, and they seem to support my point. Recall that the Democratic Party faced a quandary in that it had to “punish” states that moved their primaries out of order by not counting their delegates. Hillary supported the move initially and then changed her tune when she needed the delegates. By the end of the race, Obama, under virtually any scenario would have the majority of the non-super-delegate votes. If you assume that Edwards’ backers supported Obama, which polls suggested that they did in healthy numbers, he wins. If you assume that super-delegates peeled off of Hillary, which they were doing toward the end of the primary, he wins. And, though I am not entire sure of this, even if Hillary held onto all of her delegates and super-delegates, he wins. Please show me the scenario in which she could have won, so I understand how the race was “called” in his favor unfairly. Otherwise, please stop pushing this idea that he is an illegitimate candidate.
>>My point is merely that Reagan’s executive experience before ascending to the California governorship was really very light.>>
What do you base this on? His office was elective, Obama’s was not. He _was_ the SAG president for some years…I don’t know how many. I also don’t know if he stood for re-election during that period. I can’t say I’ve done any SAG research, and I wasn’t in California when he was governor.
>>I mean, they both were responsible for looking after the interests of a given constituency and had a P&L to manage in that effort.>>
What P&L was Obama responsible for? to whom did he report? How could he lose his job?
SueK, since when does valid executive experience need to be elective? Obama would have had to report back to the 501(c)3 non-profit that gave his organization the money, and they would have the option of witholding additional funds. Without funding, he would lose his job. But all of this is beside the point. The real point is that running SAG or a little non-profit in the Chicago inner-city are hardly big, important executive positions that will supposedly prepare one for the Governorship of California or the Presidency of the US. One produced a very good governor, so I conclude that Obama’s thin resume does not preclude a similarly admirable performance in an all-important executive position.
My goal is to convince as many voters as possible that Obama should run for governor of any state he chooses, assuming he meets state citizenship criteria, and get a little on the job training before he applies for the big job.
He would,of course, need the approval of the citizens of that state, though with his oratorical skills that shouldn’t be a problem.
So then, after a successful term or two, I would expect BrianE to be endorsing him wholeheartedly…
Not without a brain transplant, though it would kick the can down the road eight years.