I saw her twice on the Glenn Beck show. She came across as intelligent and well-spoken. She definetly is for drilling in Alaska as are the overwhelming majority of her constituents. She made the point that when Alaska became a state the trade off was explicit that the lower 48 could count on using Alaskas rich resources in exchange for the benefits of statehood. I say we should be more concerned with the wishes and needs of our 2 legged friends up north than their 4 legged creatures. and yes , she certainly is no Hillary Clinton. Thank God. Itrully loath Hillary and her aduterous husband.

Payback:

I saw her twice on the Glenn Beck show. She came across as intelligent and well-spoken. She definetly is for drilling in Alaska as are the overwhelming majority of her constituents. She made the point that when Alaska became a state the trade off was explicit that the lower 48 could count on using Alaskas rich resources in exchange for the benefits of statehood. I say we should be more concerned with the wishes and needs of our 2 legged friends up north than their 4 legged creatures. and yes , she certainly is no Hillary Clinton. Thank God. Itrully loath Hillary and her aduterous husband.

What if the way many of us would like to use Alaska's resources is by preserving its wilderness? What difference does it make what people wanted to do fifty years ago? Are we constrained by their intentions for all time?

I would hope that she's intelligent and well-spoken, but that hardly constitutes a resume for office of the President of the United States. Those qualifications should get her a gig as a telemarketer or a tour guide, not Chief Executive.

I doubt this is going to be the tach taken by the Obama campaign. With gas prices sky high and sick of dealing with the Mid East, most Americans are anxious to get as much oil and natural gas here at home, to include Alaska. The State is vast, and the area that would be effected by drilling is tiny.

It does not matter who is elected President, Alaskan oil and natural gas will be coming our way.

Oh, and by the way, she is already a Chief Executive. Something the three men in this campaign can't claim. Diminshing this woman's accomplishments will explode in your face. She has taken on the good old boys club in Alaska, and left them in the dust.

tjcerveza:

Oh, and by the way, she is already a Chief Executive. Something the three men in this campaign can't claim. Diminshing this woman's accomplishments will explode in your face. She has taken on the good old boys club in Alaska, and left them in the dust.

You're kidding, right? You can't be seriously making the claim that less than two years of experience as a governor of a state with a total population of less than a million, whose highest-level political experience prior to this was as mayor of a town of 9,000, makes her more qualified to be President of the United States than any of the other three. No one could really believe that

burymyheart@jerkingknee:

tjcerveza:

Oh, and by the way, she is already a Chief Executive. Something the three men in this campaign can't claim. Diminshing this woman's accomplishments will explode in your face. She has taken on the good old boys club in Alaska, and left them in the dust.

You're kidding, right? You can't be seriously making the claim that less than two years of experience as a governor of a state with a total population of less than a million, whose highest-level political experience prior to this was as mayor of a town of 9,000, makes her more qualified to be President of the United States than any of the other three. No one could really believe that

oh, honey. the Repubs will believe anything Rove & Rush tell them to. does the name "George W. Bush" mean anything to you?

Or, rather, will be going to the highest bidder, including some of my clients in China and India. Lest you forget the Free Market! RINO!!

Less than 2 years experience as a governor? Only prior experience was a s a mayor?

I would suggest the Obama supporters contrast that statement with their pride and joy's experience. Less than 2 years as a Senator. No bills to his credit. Previously he was the editor of a Law Journal, but never wrote a paper himself. Please find ONE accomplishment as a community organizer, or state senator.

But in 2 years as a Senator, he DID attain the top ten list for PORK. And his wife was a major recipient of that government largesse.

The MSM 'vetting' of Gov. Palin will now begin. I suspect that any negatives they come up with will reflect as double negatives on their Messiah.

mort_f:

Less than 2 years experience as a governor? Only prior experience was a s a mayor?

I would suggest the Obama supporters contrast that statement with their pride and joy's experience. Less than 2 years as a Senator. No bills to his credit. Previously he was the editor of a Law Journal, but never wrote a paper himself. Please find ONE accomplishment as a community organizer, or state senator.

But in 2 years as a Senator, he DID attain the top ten list for PORK. And his wife was a major recipient of that government largesse.

The MSM 'vetting' of Gov. Palin will now begin. I suspect that any negatives they come up with will reflect as double negatives on their Messiah.

Wow. Poor math, history, and reading skills! You are a force to be reckoned with. Obama became a Senator in 2004. Quick, what year is it? Now subtract 4 from 8, I'll wait... As for reading -- I didn't say she was entirely unqualified. I said it was insane to argue that she was more qualified than any of the others. And I repeat.

Way to falsify Obama's record, by the way. It's hard to tell if you're dishonest, or just unbright. I'm betting on both.

The Glenn Beck Show?

That guy is a nut job right up there with Limbaugh, Hannity, Liddy, etc. She's the perfect guest for him since they are both out of touch with average Americans. By the way, that was a great speech by Bill Clinton the other night!

Hey Mort:

Before you post...get your facts right...Stop using stats from Rush and Sean!

Please post the links to the bills he has AUTHORED not sponsored or co-sponsored, but actually authored unless you quickly make a website and create bills there will be no link. Also show me the reasons why he has voted 130 times PRESENT in illinois. I will give you the reason, no backbone. He is afraid to piss powerful groups. Is Palin afraid of that, or would you consider Big Oil a small group to piss off? Cmon Obama, where is the controversy on giving medical care to a baby that was product of a botched abortion and is born alive? There is none in Washington, since congress voted 98-0 that it is unethical, but Obama voted.....thats right... present in his state. Sounds like a great guy huh?

The role of governor and mayor are positions in which you must directly interact to the people and you are the one held accountable for decisions. You cant hide behind the rest of the senate and be "present". She makes decisions and she stands by them.

One more thing I love how Obama says how great our country is and how America is the the best and how awesome it is and then in the same breath his message says LETS CHANGE IT.

In review. Palin is more qualified in terms of executive experience than Obama and is running for VP not P. She knows how it is to be directly accountable for her actions. She has strong character and is not afraid to be unpopular with corrupt groups. She says no thanks to pork. Where is the controversy?

trapstar:

Please post the links to the bills he has AUTHORED not sponsored or co-sponsored, but actually authored unless you quickly make a website and create bills there will be no link.

You seem to think that somehow authoring a bill is a big deal, and sponsoring or co-sponsoring isn't. I know Daddy Rush tells you that, but it's crap. McCain was co-sponsor of the McCain-Feingold legislation, and I think he's fairly proud of that.

trapstar:

One more thing I love how Obama says how great our country is and how America is the the best and how awesome it is and then in the same breath his message says LETS CHANGE IT.

He's saying let's change our government. Subtleties may not be your strong suit, but I'm hoping you can tell the difference between a country and its government.

trapstar:

In review. Palin is more qualified in terms of executive experience than Obama and is running for VP not P. She knows how it is to be directly accountable for her actions. She has strong character and is not afraid to be unpopular with corrupt groups. She says no thanks to pork. Where is the controversy?

Obama, on your argument, is not qualified because he has not "authored" legislation, although this is a fairly meaningless distinction, and he has sponsored or co-sponsored a number of bills. Palin, however, is qualified to be President -- and the Vice President to a 72-year-old President had better be qualified to succeed to the higher office or she has no business in the job -- although she has never authored, sponsored, co-sponsored, or probably read legislation at the national level. Ah yes, if there's one thing I love, it's consistent logic.

To have an original idea and put it into legislation is a big deal. Tagging your name on to a piece of legislation that is the work of someone else is significant however less significant than the use of personal originality. Of course Rush and Sean told me to say that though.

I am not saying that Obama isn't qualified. What I am trying to get at is the FACT (when measured by time in elected office and time in executive office) that he is less qualified than Palin in terms of running for an executive office position.

She’s been in elected office longer than Sen. Obama. She’s been the chief executive of the state that provides 20 percent of America’s energy; she has balanced budgets; she has had executive experience as governor, as mayor, as a city council member and PTA- Taken from CNN.

So she was in elected office when Sen. Obama was still a local community organizer. He’s never had one day of executive experience - Taken from CNS

There are the facts, how you would like to interpret them is up to you.

Also I would love to thank Micheal Moore for saying

“I was just thinking, this Gustav is proof that there is a God in heaven,To just have it planned at the same time, that it would actually be on its way to New Orleans for Day One of the Republican convention, up in the Twin Cities, at the top of the Mississippi River.”-in an interview on MSNBC

<link>

(Go to 1min 8sec)

(also I will credit: O'reilly, Rush, Sean, and anyone else that liberals hate for being correct and intelligent)

trapstar:

To have an original idea and put it into legislation is a big deal. Tagging your name on to a piece of legislation that is the work of someone else is significant however less significant than the use of personal originality. Of course Rush and Sean told me to say that though.

I am not saying that Obama isn't qualified. What I am trying to get at is the FACT (when measured by time in elected office and time in executive office) that he is less qualified than Palin in terms of running for an executive office position.

She’s been in elected office longer than Sen. Obama. She’s been the chief executive of the state that provides 20 percent of America’s energy; she has balanced budgets; she has had executive experience as governor, as mayor, as a city council member and PTA- Taken from CNN.

So she was in elected office when Sen. Obama was still a local community organizer. He’s never had one day of executive experience - Taken from CNS

There are the facts, how you would like to interpret them is up to you.

Also I would love to thank Micheal Moore for saying

“I was just thinking, this Gustav is proof that there is a God in heaven,To just have it planned at the same time, that it would actually be on its way to New Orleans for Day One of the Republican convention, up in the Twin Cities, at the top of the Mississippi River.”-in an interview on MSNBC

<link>

(Go to 1min 8sec)

(also I will credit: O'reilly, Rush, Sean, and anyone else that liberals hate for being correct and intelligent)

Suddenly the Right has made up this idea that being an "executive" is the most important qualification for being President. And apparently it doesn't matter how small a concern you're an "executive" of, or how short a time you've been one, being an "executive" qualifies you to be President, and no other experience does. And it doesn't matter, for example, that you've almost never traveled either, and have no foreign policy experience whatsoever, as long as you've been an "executive".

But in that case I can't in good conscience vote for either ticket, can I? I mean, McCain might not die, and he's not qualified to be President.

Please, please learn to think better. Bush was a governor of a state, too, and he's run the country into a ditch. So maybe it's the intelligence and breadth of experience a person brings to the job, not one particular type.

As regards your earnest insistence on the importance of the difference between authoring and sponsoring, it's pretty much crap. Legislation in the Senate is written by senatorial staff, for the most part, sometimes in tandem with lobbyists. The work in passing legislation is more in arguing for it in committee and on the Senate floor, and getting others to commit their votes, and if sponsors and co-sponsors weren't important to that process, they wouldn't exist. I'd never argue, for example, that McCain doesn't deserve to take pride in McCain-Feingold because he wasn't the author.

By the way, WTF does a dumb-ass remark from Michael Moore, whom I pretty much loathe, have to do with who's a better candidate? He's not running, the last time I checked. If you're trying to insinuate that somehow Obama's responsible for everything said by anyone who supports him, I'm sure we can dig up something lovely for McCain from someone at Stormfront.