In article <%gCuk.147$jE1.144@trnddc03>,
"Dave Bugg" > wrote:

> Stan Horwitz wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Goomba > wrote:
> >
> >> Michael "Dog3" wrote:
> >>
> >>> Of course but most of us might need a tad bit more experience than 2
> >>> years as Governor before stepping into the White House. Would you
> >>> like her running the country? I wouldn't. Nothing trumps her
> >>> current position. Apparently Alaskans are fond of her for whatever
> >>> reason. IMO she sure as hell doesn't have what it takes to assume
> >>> the Presidency. As VP I'm sure she would be fine.
> >>>
> >>> Michael
> >>
> >> I'd venture to say her two years of executive state government
> >> experience is about equal to Obama's, eh?
> >
> > If so, then McCain and his supporters can't take Obama to task for
> > lacking enough experience to be president. Eh?
>
> Sure they can, Stan. After all it is McCain vs. Obama, not Palin vs. Obama.

Wrong. Its McCain vs. Obama and Palin vs. Biden. With McCain's advanced
age and his history of skin cancer, there's a strong likelihood that if
McCain wins the election, Palin will be president some day. McCain can't
campaign effectively against Obama while picking a potential president
on his ticket who has even less experience then Obama has.

> One candidate, among the 4 people running for the presidential ticket, would
> learn from the long-term national experiences of an elected president.

That experience is terrible and has gotten us into the worst economic
situation in our nation's history.

> Another would learn from the long-term experiences of an elected vice
> president.

Right, Biden, who has even more experience in foreign affairs then
McCain does. Biden has his liabilities too, but they are miniscule in
camparison to McCain and his attempt to mold himself into a new Bush
over the past eight years. Biden also isn't going to **** off everyone
except the far right, like Palin will.

> For those of you in this thread to argue that McCain lost credibility by
> claiming the need for experience in an elected president, based on the
> selection of a running mate, is silly and weak and doesn't hold up to the
> giggle test. It sounds more like serious spinning and grasping at straws in
> order to find something, ANYTHING, to overcome the perceived weakness of
> Obama's lack of experience. The only folks that will buy the 'Palin has no
> more experience than Obama' rationalization are those who are firmly in
> Obama's camp regardless. It is better to focus on whether the qualities
> Barack might bring as president, outweighs the experience that McCain might
> bring as president.

We'll see. You may be right. I bet we'll see a lot less talk about
Obama's lack of experience during the convention speeches this week as a
result of Palin being on McCain's ticket.

I agree that its better to focus on the issues that McCain and Obama
bring to the table. I have always maintained that the issue of
experience or lack thereof is a charade, but now McCain makes that view
even more obvious. Unfortunately for McCain, campaigning on real issues
works to his disadvantage.

McCain's campaign is built upon a house of cards. That house of cards
was built by George W. Bush. We all know that Bush's job approval rating
is abysmal, for good reason. McCain can flip flop all he wants, but over
the past eight years, he has obviously been molding himself into another
George W. Bush, so if McCain and his defenders want to campaign on the
issues, I say "bring it on" to quote his idol, George W. Bush.

> And you McCain supporters, you really need to look at how silly you make
> McCain look when you waste time arguing such stupid minutiae. You need to
> recognize the logical fallacy of the Palin-Obama-McCain-Experience nonsense
> and quit giving such a lame argument validation. I don't give a rat's ass
> worth of time obsessing on the experience issue. Experience is nice. But so
> is the ability to find the best advisors, to evaluate what those advisors
> say, and then to make a timely decision based on what you believe is the
> right thing to do for *America*, not what is politically expedient.

I totally agree. What McCain's supporters conveniently seem to forget is
that most presidents enter the White House for the first time with
little to no experience. How can one possibly serve as president for a
first term with experience, doing a job that is like no other? Its
impossible and for McCain and his supporters to imply otherwise is yet
another example of the Republicans' lies and deceit. What's more, the
current president had four years of experience when he ran for office in
2004 and look where its gotten us. Our current president is the best
example I can think of to point out that on-the-job experience is not a
valid qualifier to be president, which is another reason why I think
this entire issue of experience is a charade that's being foisted upon
us by the McCain/Rove campaign machine ... until he picked Palin.

> I don't know if I will vote for either of the two "Big Politics" offerings.
> Reading this thread and absorbing the juvenile antics of both camps leaves
> me shaking my head at the the level of behavior, which seems to be reflected
> in much of the voting population at large. I don't know if I want to vote
> for a candidate of either stripe whose devotees have no more faith in their
> candidate than to focus on the kind of tripe (ob food) offered in this
> thread. Some of you are clearly capable of offering a more cogent argument
> on the strengths of your favored candidate than what this thread represents.
> You should reserve your credibility for those instances.

The issues and ideals will come out in the debates. None of us is on
either candidate's campaign team so we are not in the best position to
campaign for either of them. I prefer for voters to listen to both
candidates in their debates and study their platforms via their web
sites, then make an informed decision on November 4th.