Sarah Palin’s “Executive Experience”
This is where the vast majority of Sarah Palin’s "executive experience" took place. This looks like friggin’ laundry mat. I guess a picture speaks a thousand words.
Regarding Palin’s mayoral race and her time as mayor of the small town, Time Magazine has a story up now demonstrating how Sarah Palin injected religious issues into the race:
In [former mayor John] Stein’s view, Palin’s main transgression was injecting big-time politics into a small-town local race. "It was always a nonpartisan job," he says. "But with her, the state GOP came in and started affecting the race." While Palin often describes that race as having been a fight against the old boys’ club, Stein says she made sure the campaign hinged on issues like gun owners’ rights and her opposition to abortion (Stein is pro-choice). "It got to the extent that — I don’t remember who it was now — but some national antiabortion outfit sent little pink cards to voters in Wasilla endorsing her," he says.
Vicki Naegele was the managing editor of the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman at the time. "[Stein] figured he was just going to run your average, friendly small-town race," she recalls, "but it turned into something much different than that." Naegele held the same conservative Christian beliefs as Palin but didn’t think they had any place in local politics.
"I just thought, That’s ridiculous, she should concentrate on roads, not abortion," says Naegele.
Why would a race for mayor ever center on gun rights and abortion? These are far outside the reach of a mayor’s power. So either Sarah Palin didn’t understand what a mayor did, or she didn’t care about running a campaign that had nothing to do with actual issues. Either way, it doesn’t speak well of her.
In more bad news for the McCain campaign, Gallup shows the Barack Obama holding a steady lead following the Democratic convention. More importantly, he has the crucial 50 pecert threshold. He leads 50-42 in the Gallup poll ending on September 1st.
September 02 2008 11:18 pm | American Politics
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:33 am
Apparently the people of Wasilla thought it spoke well of her since they elected her. and it was always my understanding that liberals believed it was the people that made that determination. From the gist of your post it appears that it is only the people that makes that determination when the people are in agreement with liberal ideology.
September 3rd, 2008 at 4:36 am
I’ve posted a photo of the place where Obama and Biden got their executive experience:
No, that’s not a photograph of an igloo in a blizzard. There’s no photo because Obama and Biden have no executive experience. At all.
Honestly, y’all need to give up on the experience issue. It only highlights the fact that the Democratic ticket has none.
And if Obama wants to claim the campaign as “experience”, well, then he has to admit that he was really only a senator for a year before he headed off to hang out in Iowa. The Illinois legislature is a part-time job, of course.
No, “experience” is a topic best avoided, if you’re on the Democratic ticket.
September 3rd, 2008 at 9:44 pm
I’m sorry, Gordon, is it your argument that Joe Biden needs lessons from Sarah Palin in how to manage people? You don’t think that maybe he learned a thing or two in his 35 years in the United States Senate?
My point is that Palin’s “executive experience” claims are ludicrous. She can only claim to have more executive experience in a very technical sense, and she can’t claim to have more overall experience in anyway whatsoever (unless now we’re going to start counting sitting on the city council of a town with about 5,000 people “experience).
I’m surprised the GOP wants to push that “executive experience” meme. It’s clearly a matter of semantics. Being mayor of Wasilla does not count as executive experience, not of the kind necessary to be applicable to sitting a heartbeat away from the president.
Also, Griper, Palin was very nearly recalled by the citizens of Wasilla for her abuse of power while Mayor, so it’s a bit of stretch to call her “popular.”
September 3rd, 2008 at 10:04 pm
‘Executive’ is the operative word when talking about Palin’s ‘experience’. Palin has a total of 8 years of ‘executive’ experience - 6 years as mayor of a small Alaskan town (approx pop: 6,000) and 2 years as governor of the 47th most populous state in the nation (approx pop: 670k). She even has more ‘executive’ experience than John McCain who has only 13 months leading a Navy unit of 1,000 people when he was in the military.
September 3rd, 2008 at 10:18 pm
big blue,
“Also, Griper, Palin was very nearly recalled by the citizens of Wasilla for her abuse of power while Mayor, so it’s a bit of stretch to call her “popular.”
that is the same as saying she was not recalled by the citizens so my argument stands. the majority spoke in both cases, in her election and in her recall. and that popularity expanded upon being being electted as governor.
September 4th, 2008 at 2:05 am
First, my compliments to both Big Blue and Ruinous Right. You guys are keeping it about experience and qualifications. With all we’ve seen from DKos and DU and Andrew Sullivan lately, it’s nice to see some responsible arguements from the left.
Y’all are still wrong, though!
Yeah, you could say she was “almost recalled” if you consider winning re-election by a 75-25 margin “almost losing.”
And if state size matters to you, then how could Barak consider accepting Joe Biden when he’s from the 45th most populous state? After all, he could have chosen Hillary Clinton, who is from Illinois and represents New York.
And it still does not change the fact that McCain has more executive experience than Biden and Obama combined; and Palin has more than that.
And yeah, since you brought it up, it’s pretty common knowledge in Washington that Biden could indeed use some lessons in handling people. Even after 35 years.
September 4th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Re: The “executive experience” issue. Jimmy Carter had executive experience.
Abraham Lincoln, Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower didn’t.
Any idiot can see through that specious argument–Sarah Palin has “executive experience,” Obama and Biden don’t; therefore Palin is more qualified?
Where oh where are these people’s critical thinking skills.
And, BTW, John McCain has no “executive experience,” and HE’S running for the top spot.
The Goopers are not deep thinkers. They don’t think; they listen to Rush Limbaugh–his listeners are called “dittoheads.” You know what “ditto” means, right? “Me, too!”
September 4th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Lincoln and Truman both had earned a living in the private sector before entering politics. True, Carter had executive experience, both in Georgia government and his peanut warehouse. So I guess it isn’t a perfect analogy.
But McCain was a naval squadron commander, and a good one. He turned an underperforming unit into a very successful one.
And I think most folks would agree that commanding the invasion of North Africa would count as executive experience for Eisenhower. The invasion and liberation of Europe still ranks as one of the most complex military operations in the history of the world. So saying Ike had no executive experience is, well, wrong.
September 4th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
I like that this discussion is largely about experience. I dislike the fact that some people feel the need to disparage one’s intellect based upon their political party. The issue of not being a “deep thinker” could be applied to anyone at any given time that they disagree with one’s point of view don’t you think Shaw? Including a president who has sex with an intern…doesn’t sound like a lot of logic went into that decision now does it…or are we saying that Clinton was just “promoting public relations” with Gennifer Flowers, Monica Lewinsky, as well as the score of others? That’s about as big a stretch as Obama’s executive experience from running a campaign. Truly laughable and the mark of a man who knows he does not measure up to the competition. If Obama wins this election it will not be based upon qualifications on his part but rather the ability to be a great public speaker -at times-and the inate ability to twist the facts to what his audience at any given moment wants to hear.
September 4th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
is experience within a certain field a qualification for a certain postion? yes it is. does experience automatically get you the position you want over another with no or lesser experience? the answer is no. but it does add to the argument that you should get the position. the fact that some have gotten the position without it does not eliminate it as a qualification. all it shows is that it was ignored when the decision was made.
on the other hand, possessing all of the qualifications necessary for a certain position does not translate into performing the responsibilities of that position well either. but that doesn’t mean that those qualifications for a position should be ignored in your judgment.
so it is your argument, shaw, that is illogical.
September 5th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
“Lincoln and Truman both had earned a living in the private sector before entering politics. True, Carter had executive experience, both in Georgia government and his peanut warehouse. So I guess it isn’t a perfect analogy.”
Okay, now you’re changing the parameters. Now you’re saying Lincoln and Truman, even though they had no executive experience, were qualified to be president because they had earned a living? (Truman’s haberdashery shop, btw, went bankrupt.) Barack Obama was a civil rights lawyer and he taught Constitutional Law. That’s earning a living, too. So I’ll assume that you’ll agree that since you believe it counted for Lincoln and Truman, it counts for Obama.
“But McCain was a naval squadron commander, and a good one. He turned an underperforming unit into a very successful one.
And I think most folks would agree that commanding the invasion of North Africa would count as executive experience for Eisenhower. The invasion and liberation of Europe still ranks as one of the most complex military operations in the history of the world. So saying Ike had no executive experience is, well, wrong.”
I’m glad you brought this point up because it illustrates my point. There are many ways one can acquire experience, executive or non-executive, in order to qualify to be president–you’ve just said so.
What should concern everyone is that John McCain was someone who was known as a “maverick.” Since his nomination, he has reversed his position on many of the things he stood for as an idependent politician.
He now takes his advice from Karl Rove, the political hack who gave us 4 disasterous years of GWBush: divisivness, deficits, debt, and an illegal war.
It is NOT leadership when a man caves to political hacks and political expediency. I would have respected McCain more had he stayed true to himself instead of becoming George W. McCain.
September 5th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Was Obama actually a practicing attorney? I know he taught con law, part-time, at UC, but did he ever actually work in a courtroom? I don’t know the answer, I’m just asking.
And in any case, you have invoked the hellspawn demon Rove! Before his evil all good must quail. Avaunt! Avaunt! His foulness knows no limits, and once invoked all arguement ceases.
oh, one more question: why was the war illegal? Congress authorized it; the UN did too. So whence the alleged illegality?
September 5th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
I can only laugh and say thanks for that
September 6th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Google Barack Obama and Civil Rights Lawyer and you’ll get your answer. (PS. He litigated civil rights cases.)
Re: Why was the Iraq war was illegal?
The Congress voted for it based upon misrepresentations and lies.
The Bush administration made a fradulent case for the US to invade Iraq.
I’ve heard many use the argument that some Democrats in Congress claimed Saddam had WMDs, too, and that some of those same Democrats said we should stop Saddam from using them, etc. IOW, the Right claims the Democrats believed the lies, too.
We will never, never know what a Democratic president would have done had he/she been the president in 2003.
Saying that the Democrats believed Saddam had WMDs and that he should be stopped from using them is NOT the same as invading a sovereign country and destroying it.
September 6th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Shaw,
The President of the US does not make the case for wars. no President does. that is the Constitutional responsibility of Congress. Congress makes and states the case for wars. and the case Congress presented was all true.
“We will never, never know what a Democratic president would have done had he/she been the president in 2003″
this i’ll grant you but at the same time you will have to admit that we cannot know what Congress would have done if those supposedly misrepresentations were eliminated by the same reasoning.
and i’ll give you all the votes of Congress that have said they were duped by Bush into voting for the war and the end result will still be the same, a declaration of war.
September 6th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
“The President of the US does not make the case for wars. no President does.” I can think of a very recent one that trumped up the idea in a bold and
ill-informed manner. He constantly rattled the cage for war with ‘evidence’ and threats. Those that considered the pre-emptive invasion of another country for very poor reasons ill-advised were brushed aside as ‘unpatriotic’. While a number of generals stood firm, they were replaced. Congress bit the bait of patriotism. The right to ‘declare’ war is reserved to congress. It has not done that since
1941. So, we are not at war. 4000 battle deaths and hundreds of billions of dollars, but…we are not at war.
September 6th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
it has declared war on Iraq, bb. the fact that it is called a resolution rather than using the words “declaration of war” is irrelevant. there is nothing that demands that those words be used unless Conngress passed a law necessitating it that i am aware of.
September 7th, 2008 at 3:19 am
You know, for all of the emotion and verbiage expended on the “illegal war” meme, I thought there would have been a better explanation.
There simply weren’t any lies. This has been gone over, more than once, by groups headed by Democrats and by Republicans. There were differences of opinion–but this is always the case, in any administration.
Generals who prefer not to follow the orders of their commanders are replaced. So are generals who fail to keep the confidence of their commanders. This, too, is neither new nor unusual. Truman, Roosevelt and LBJ all did this.
And I’m really tired of the whining about being called “unpatriotic.” Those who disagreed may well have been called dense, or stupid. But I never heard anyone from the administration or any national commentator of repute question anyone’s patriotism.
The “illegal war” meme is the foundation of the argument that some members of the Bush administration should be charged with war crimes. This is the dumbest idea to come out of the antiwar left. In this country, we do not criminalize policy differences. It’s one of the differences between liberal democracies, and authoritarian regimes.
Or perhaps those who think we should would like to see Bill Clinton brought up on charges of negligence for failing to prosecute the war on al-Quieda? Should Carter be tried for his misjudgments about Iran? Such a door swings both ways, after all.
September 9th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
There’s a big difference between what you view to be policy mistakes made by Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, and Bush’s war. Bush aggressively made misrepresentations of facts to instill fear in the American public and deceive the congress.
Clinton negotiated peace in Ireland and Jimmy Carter received the Nobel Peace Prize on October 11, 2002. If your confident that George Bush’s actions were based on “policy differences”, lets turn him over to the world court and see if they confirm your point of view?
September 10th, 2008 at 11:34 am
Jessica,
Bush didn’t say anything that Clinton hadn’t said before; in fact, Clinton said pretty much the same things when the issue was being debated. So shall we indict Clinton for the same things? The difference is that Bush actually took action in support of UN resolutions; Clinton was content to talk big.
But even here, you’re changing the language. Without conceding your point, “aggressively made misrepresentations of facts” is not the same as “lied.” The truth is, Bush believed there were WMDs, as did Blair, and the leaders of France, Germany, China and Russia. Even Saddam’s generals belived it; they were asking for the weapons to be released for use during the invasion.
Saddam was providing material and financial support to terrorists. He was threatening his neighbors. He was murdering Kurds, Shia and Sunni who opposed his policies. Murders in the millions.
The world is better off without him. The Iraqis are better off without him, and his vicious offspring. You will get no argument from me that the US botched the post-invasion period; we could have and should have done better. But the job needed to be done, and let’s face it: only the US had the means.
But if we start criminalizing policy differences, then you start a chain of consequences. I’m pretty sure you haven’t thought through those consequences. For one thing, the other side gets to use that stick when it’s your friends in the dock.
And for another, that stick leads to dictatorship. If some adminstration fears that they will be jailed or worse for policy decisions, then that adminstration will be damn reluctant to hand over the reins of power.
There’s a reason Pelosi & Reid et al have done nothing more than hold a few hearings about what they didn’t like. They would love to see Bush humiliated and forced out of office. But they know that the show trials might not end with people who have -R after their name. And they wouldn’t enjoy having their public statements parsed by a hostile prosecutor.
The US has been lucky; all of the major attacks against it (since 1981) have been foiled. Should one get through, there might be some pretty strong sentiment for going after the folks who voted to cut off funding for US forces. They also voted for restrictions on intelligence gathering. Policy differences; but hey, we’ve opened the door!
A long time ago, my parents taught me a valuable lesson about people who have differing political opinions. I learned that these people aren’t bad just because they disagree. They may be wrong, even wrong-headed, but they are people of good will who want the best for the country.
We air our differences in debate, and we strive to convince others that our way is best. Then we decide the issue by voting. And when the ballots are counted, the winners and losers shake hands and go on. They are still your neighbors, and next time it may be you and they standing together on a different issue.