Crib Notes - Palin vs Obama

[De Selby]

So, what is your suggestion?

Remember that, de-facto, we have to support someone.  It's not like we can somehow not run a candidate in 2012 and 2016. Palin is quite obviously the best person that can currently run. I've explained previously, in other threads, why she is favored. You've not responded to my points, and are instead choosing to attack her supposed inability to campaign.

I think I have responded to that point - the answer is, whoever you support, Sarah Palin is not going to win a national election any time soon.  Her inability to campaign is not supposed; it is demonstrated, and crib noting such simple words is yet another demonstration.  This fact alone (ie, the fact of her inability to campaign) makes her not the best person that can currently run, because someone with half her policies and twice her chances to win would get us more.

[MicroBalrog]

Et tu, Brute?

[Monkeyleg]

How are these scribbles on Palin's hand any different from that?

Does anyone know what was written on Palin's hand? I doubt very much she can write small enough to fit a 45 minute speech on her hand. If she needs that, I'm sure Obama would lend her the TOTUS.

As for Fred Thompson, it would seem that he just doesn't have the fire in him.  He fell out of the race much too early. Perhaps he saw the handwriting and knew a Republican couldn't wind. Or maybe Nixon was right, and Thompson is lazy.

[Ben]

As for Fred Thompson, it would seem that he just doesn't have the fire in him.  He fell out of the race much too early. Perhaps he saw the handwriting and knew a Republican couldn't wind. Or maybe Nixon was right, and Thompson is lazy.

I really like Thompson's stance on the issues, and he's an eloquent speaker who seems to be a straight shooter. Unfortunately as Monkeyleg said, and from what I saw in the primaries, he just doesn't seem to have the drive for a campaign. If somebody could stick a burr under his saddle and rile him up a bit, he'd be an outstanding candidate.

[RocketMan]

As long as we're talking about candidates here, I feel this is a good time to bring up that I always thought Fred Thompson should have won the nomination.  Perhaps another shot?

Fred Thompson didn't really want to be President.

[roo_ster]

As long as we're talking about candidates here, I feel this is a good time to bring up that I always thought Fred Thompson should have won the nomination.  Perhaps another shot?

Perhaps a shot of Red Bull, too, to get Fred into gear.

[Regolith]

Fred Thompson didn't really want to be President.

Which is why he should have won.   

[taurusowner]

Which is why he should have won.   

Bingo.

[BReilley]

We don't know what's on the teleprompter, but I think it's safe to assume he's got a script on there.  It means he's fanatical about controlling his message to the point that not one word can go off script.

Uh, do you remember when his teleprompter went fubar, and he actually repeated a topic, um, then mentioned that he'd already been over it? As I have said in the past, his teleprompter-dependency certainly means something, but let me be clear - I don't think it means what you think it means

Her inability to campaign is not supposed; it is demonstrated, and crib noting such simple words is yet another demonstration.

Campaigning with/for a "maverick" like McCain is not the best way for a "true" conservative to get started in national politics.  I wonder if you'd be able to say the same thing if she'd been chosen as a running mate for, say, Romney or Huckabee(not that either of them are what I'm looking for, but certainly closer than McCain).  Maybe she'd have done better if she didn't have to support someone with baggage like cap'n'trade, McCain-Feingold, etc. His staff screwed the pooch with Palin overall, anyway.

I don't mean to excuse Palin - she has made her fair share of oopses - but she did not go down without a good amount of help(as you mentioned).

This fact alone (ie, the fact of her inability to campaign) makes her not the best person that can currently run, because someone with half her policies and twice her chances to win would get us more.

I'll say again, if we actually had a candidate with the balls to come out and speak up for liberty and laissez-faire, we might stand a chance.  The strategy you advocate didn't get the R's very far in '08 - they offered a candidate who was honorable and respectable, with a long history of service, but who was willing to give on all the wrong things.
Who is this "us", anyway?  The "us" you seem to represent here should be awfully happy with who's in office now.

...I liked Thompson, too.  I'd vote for him in a Republican primary.

[RocketMan]

quoting myself:

Fred Thompson didn't really want to be President.

Which is why he should have won.   

You might have something.  I've often wondered if a President should not be elected so much as dragged kicking and screaming into office.  Maybe we'd get a better one that way.

[Regolith]

quoting myself:
You might have something.  I've often wondered if a President should not be elected so much as dragged kicking and screaming into office.  Maybe we'd get a better one that way.

Yup.

I once read a book that had a story about a country that was set up that way -- the nominees were usually selected against their will, and forced into office if they won.  The reason it was against their will is because the entirety of their wealth - every thing of value they owned - was placed into the government coffers once they won the election.  If the government lost money, they lost money.  If the government ran a surplus, they made a profit.  Taxes were also set constitutionally, so they couldn't simply raise taxes if the government started running into the red; they had to do it honestly.

As a result, the government never ran a deficit.   

[De Selby]

Et tu, Brute?

Here's the thing: if you don't care about electability, there's an obvious choice for your support - Ron Paul.  From what I can gather, he is far more up our alley than Sarah Palin. 

If you are looking for a viable candidate, on the other hand, you might as well pick one that has proven capacity to navigate the national political scene.  I don't know which would be the best, but I do think there is more than enough to suggest that Sarah Palin can't do the job.

[Monkeyleg]

Here's the thing: if you don't care about electability, there's an obvious choice for your support - Ralph Nader.  From what I can gather, he is far more up our your alley than Barack Obama. 

If you are looking for a viable candidate, on the other hand, you might as well pick one that has proven capacity to navigate the national political scene.  I don't know which would be the best, but I do think there is more than enough to suggest that Sarah Palin Barack Obama can't do the job.

[MechAg94]

Here's the thing: if you don't care about electability, there's an obvious choice for your support - Ron Paul.  From what I can gather, he is far more up our alley than Sarah Palin.  

If you are looking for a viable candidate, on the other hand, you might as well pick one that has proven capacity to navigate the national political scene.  I don't know which would be the best, but I do think there is more than enough to suggest that Sarah Palin can't do the job.

There was and is far more to suggest that Obama can't do the job, but that hasn't stopped him from trying and it didn't stop people from electing him or many in the media from continuing to support him.

(I posted this before I read Monkeyleg's post.)

[MicroBalrog]

Here's the thing: if you don't care about electability, there's an obvious choice for your support - Ron Paul.  From what I can gather, he is far more up our alley than Sarah Palin. 

You know exactly what I think about electability. I may haul out the demotivator again, if you like.  You also know what I think about Ron Paul.

OTOH, RP isn't running. And nobody is going to even let him within a mile's radius of the nomination if he does run.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Here's the thing: if you don't care about electability, there's an obvious choice for your support - Ron Paul.  From what I can gather, he is far more up our alley than Sarah Palin.  

If you are looking for a viable candidate, on the other hand, you might as well pick one that has proven capacity to navigate the national political scene.  I don't know which would be the best, but I do think there is more than enough to suggest that Sarah Palin can't do the job.

The more you lefties howl about Sarah, the more fun it is to support her.

 

[MicroBalrog]

SS isn't really a lefty.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

So he says.  I disagree.  If he looks like a duck and talks like a duck...

[DittoHead]

If you are looking for a viable candidate, on the other hand, you might as well pick one that has proven capacity to navigate the national political scene.  I don't know which would be the best, but I do think there is more than enough to suggest that Sarah Palin Barack Obama can't do the job.

I'm assuming you're just trying to be antagonistic towards shootinstudent and not actually arguing this point, right? Even if you don't like him, claiming that current president wouldn't be "a viable candidate that has proven capacity to navigate the national political scene" seems a bit ridiculous.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Barry got himself elected, but he's proven pretty inept at implementing his policies.  It wouldn't be hard to make a case that he can't navigate the political scene.

[Monkeyleg]

Barack Obama isn't leading the Democrat party, it's being led by Pelosi and Reid. Obama can't even control his own party. That's not a leader.

He could have avoided the "new kid in town" problem by surrounding himself with Washington veterans, as did Clinton and Bush. Instead he chose the Chicago mob and some far-out lefties. He doesn't have the time in the senate himself to have forged sufficient alliances to push his agenda, so Reid and Pelosi are doing the work for him, but also dictating the substance of the legislation.

[De Selby]

Look, there has to be a distinction between being able to "do the job" (ie, run the white house well) and being able to "navigate the national political scene" (ie, run a campaign that wins enough votes to take the election.)

Those two skill sets are entirely different - campaigning is not nation-managing, and never will be.  So it's entirely reasonable to believe Barack Obama isn't up to tackling the nation's problems (so far he's done nothing but prove that), but whether or not he can run a campaign sufficient to make up for it is a different question entirely. Anyone who would say that after his last showing is jumping the gun, imho.

There's lots of room for talking down Obama's leadership; there's precious little anyone can say to him about being an effective campaigner.

[RoadKingLarry]

Look, there has to be a distinction between being able to "do the job" (ie, run the white house well) and being able to "navigate the national political scene" (ie, run a campaign that wins enough votes to take the election.)

I suspect Obama had about as much to do with running his campaign as a California surfer does with making the gnarly waves he rides.

[MechAg94]

There's lots of room for talking down Obama's leadership; there's precious little anyone can say to him about being an effective campaigner.

I would disagree.  

1.  He had a swooning media love affair praising him every night on the news.  
2.  He had a fairly mediocre opponent who had trouble even energizing his own party faithful.  
3.  He had an electorate that had pretty negative feelings for the previous Republican President which gave him a built in advantage on election day.

Despite that, he really didn't have a great margin of victory.  

IMO, even though he was always praised for his speaking ability, he really wasn't/isn't that great and made a number of highly publicized mistakes.  His dependency on the teleprompter was known even then.  It would have been worse had not #1 been true.  

He selected a VP running mate that makes verbal mistakes at a rate measured by the hour.  He is worse than Democrats ever dreamed Dan Quayle was.  Again, #1 made it a non-issue.

IMO, that doesn't make him a good campaigner or decision maker.  The main thing I might say is either he or his campaign staff did a good job of managing the media.  However, he rarely even talked to the media except under very controlled conditions.  If they didn't love him already, they would have chaffed at that a lot more so I'm not sure I can even give him credit for that.  

About the only positive thing I can say is that he did realize that he had no one capable of running the Defense Department and got Gates to stay on.  

[Monkeyleg]

Look, there has to be a distinction between being able to "do the job" (ie, run the white house well) and being able to "navigate the national political scene" (ie, run a campaign that wins enough votes to take the election.)

"Running the White House well" could be construed to mean setting the thermostats right. If you mean running his staff well, then you have to look at the disastrous appointments of "czars" with views so whacked out that almost nobody in the country approves of them. I could create a long list, but that's a start.

The "national political scene" isn't running a campaign. It's working with members of congress--from both parties--to advance your agenda. It involves friendships, promises made, promises kept, alliances, and all of the other things that people usually deride when they describe "politics." Done properly, though, politics is not bad.

One problem for Obama is that he didn't give sufficient help to members of congress in their campaigns, and there was a lot of resentment about that. He was only concerned with his own election, and screw everyone else. That's bad politics.