Listen to this interview by reporter Ron Allen with former Republican Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich. Especially from the 2:30 mark to the end. It highlights the hypocrisy going on with the criticism of Sarah Palin and her supposed "lack of experience". It's laughable. Newt points this out in a way that the reporter is unable or at least unwilling to rebut. It's actually amazing that Obama's side is willing to open that door because this is where his resume is the weakest. Sarah Palin has more experience as an executive than Obama, Biden AND McCain all added together! Obama himself keeps referring to her condescendingly as a mayor of a very small town, ignoring the fact that EVERYONE knows, that for the last 22 months, she's been the governor of a state. If we go back to look at what Barrack Obama was doing before his 120+ days in the Senate where most of the time he voted "present" because he didn't want to take a stand on the issues, he was a community organizer. Palin in her speech last night tried to explain this by saying something like, "I guess being a mayor is sort of like being a community organizer..... execpt with actual responsibilities." Let's compare apples with apples.
State governments are a microcosm of the federal government. As a governor, you have many of the same departments and agencies and have similar responsibilities - just on a different scale. That's why traditionally Governors have done well in presidential elections. And like Newt points out, what has Obama done except give speeches and write two books about himself? Senators sit on committees and vote. They don't act as exectives and are not held responsible as such. So if Sarah Palin is not qualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency, based on the criterion of experience, then by the very same measure, Obama is certainly not qualified to actually be President. I'm amazed that he'd open himself up like that. You'd think he'd want to steer away from that to avoid his weak spot being highlighted.
I know that historically there are examples of past presidents who did not have much executive experience and they did just fine. I believe Abraham Lincoln might be one example.. I don't have time to research it... someone tell me if I'm wrong. I'm not saying that one with limited experience cannot come in and do a good job, I'm saying that it's hypocritical to say that Obama's lack of experience is not a big deal, but oh boy, look at Sarah Palin's experience. Let's be consistent and honest here. This is less about experience as it is once again politics. If Sarah Palin were a Democrat, she would be their hero and vice versa with Obama and Republicans.
Here is a different but related point. The cavalcade of criticism against Sarah Palin (and I'm not talking about objective questions regarding experience and policy - I'm talking about personal attacks and the politics of personal destruction) has been extraordinary to say the least. I thought that liberals were all about women not being chained to the their kids at home. Whether or not one agrees with her politics, I would think that anyone who is a champion of women rising above the glass ceiling of past oppression and discrimination in this country, could acknowledge and admire the fact that she has done exactly that in her career, while still disagreeing with her positions and policies. It reminds me of how incredible it was to see Clarence Thomas dismissed as an Uncle Tom becasue his politics were conservative. Do you think he would NOT be the hero of the liberals if he was liberal? But he's not, so his acheivement as the second African American to ever sit on the highest court in the land.. means nothing to them.
Incredible.
4 comments:
Just a couple of comments.
Just how stupid did you want this reporter to look? Newt completely shoved his question into the toilet, then asked him to debate the issue. How unprofessional would that have looked if he started arguing with Newt? Yes, he asked a dumb question, and in so doing blew away any kind of non-partisan, objective stand that is critical to journalistic credibility. However, by simply ending the interview he wisely ended his embarrassment.
Palin and Obama are both relatively inexperienced in politics in general. They are both new to the game. You can bicker between the differences of the types of experience they've each had, but if one is to think critically about either person, you would have to admit that both are newbies. And as you pointed out, since statistically, McCain could die within his first term, this race should almost be treated as Obama vs Palin.
"what has Obama done except give speeches and write two books about himself? " C'mon Spence, rise above your right-wing bias and see both the good and the bad in each candidate. By the way, you left out "conducting business with a felon" as another thing Obama has done.
As far as your last point goes, how unfair you think the media is to a candidate usually depends on whether or not that candidate is getting your vote.
your comment about how unfair the media is..... US magazine had a cover recenty of the Obamas with the headline about how much he loves her.. implying such a great wonderful marriage... which it may be. Sarah Palin on the cover this week with this headline...."Sex, lies and a baby". I don't think this perception is just about who is getting my vote. Are you not objective enough to see the bias in this example?
I have more to say but am late for work.
(There was a typo in my last comment, so I deleted it and reposted...I should really proof read these comments before posting)
I know you had more to say about this but let me interject...
Obama has been under scrutiny longer than Palin has, that's the only difference.
When Obama stared his campaign in the primaries, he had plenty of negative coverage. I did a Google search on it and immediately had three negative magazine covers on him.
Palin is just a few days into it and she already has a positive spread on "Alaska" magazine. It calls her "America's Hottest Governor. Wildly Popular, She's More Than Just a Pretty Face".
I'd like to post them here but I can't.
Listen, we already discussed the media slants on other posts. We both know that any particular media will slant one way or the other. Obviously, with an agenda to fulfill and advertising to sell, they are going to be harsh on the candidate they don't like.
So I think you are comparing apples to oranges because you need to consider the timing aspect of this whole thing. We got tired of the whole "Muslim" controversy and we will also get tired of the "Babygate" bs that Palin is undergoing (and unfortunately also her daughter). But sooner or later people get tired of sensationalist journalism and they want the real scoop.
So, that raises the question, where are all the conservative-friendly media? Are they dropping the ball here? If left-leaning media is ripping Palin apart and right-leaning media isn't coming to the rescue, then why?
That's a rhetorical question. In my opinion, Palin just hasn't been in the spotlight long enough yet. She'll have plenty of media coverage that'll give you "warm fuzzies" in the near future.
So yes, I do think I'm being objective.
On a side note, with all the attention given to McCain, Obama and Palin, notice how we don't hear a thing about Biden? Now that's funny. What kind of blow to his ego must it be that no one really gives a blank about him?
Post a Comment