Obama sat in this Church for 20 years and claims he didn't know what was going on, that should have disqualified him on the spot but Obama didn't run the Church so to me that shows poor judgment on his part.Tucker Case;1059107129]Please, Wassilla is not a city. It's a small town. Palin ran a small town. It's possible more people belong to Obama's "racist" church.
Being Mayor of a City still has personnel, budgetary, and capital responsibilities none of which Obama has ever had. She then went on to the Governor of Alaska from 2006-2009 and had the highest approval ratings of any Governor on record. Must have been doing a pretty good job. Obama never ran a state.Anyone can be mayor of a town the size of a donut. Literally, any moron can do it. I've met mayors of suburbs of Chciago that are three or four times bigger than Wasilla and have held the job for decades. They are about as qualified for the office of POTUS as a dead lemur. Running a small town isn't a qualification for POTUS. Not by any stretch of the imagination. I have more qualifications as a former small business owner, and I'm definitely not qualified.
I don't like the fact that she quit either but understand it. She saved the people of Alaska millions in legal bills and still left with a high approval rating. Obama quit his job as Senator if in fact he ever really did his job as Senator. He spent most of his first term campaigning for President. Name for me any significant piece of legislation Obama authored.Now, if she was actually succesful as governor of alaska, I'd be willing to chalk that up as a legitimate qualification. But she was a failure who quit the job she asked the people of alaska to give her before her term was up.
Her Approval Ratings don't define a failure. Do you know why she resigned? Before calling her a failure don't you think you should find out?So she was a failure as a governor of a state with a relatively tiny population. And we don't even need history to tell us that she was a failure.
Some disagree, he was paid a salary to be Senator, go to the Congressional record and see how many votes he missed. he was too busy campaigning for President in 2007-2008 to do the job he was elected to do. I call that a failure.Obama on the other hand, hasn't quit. We do require history to find out if he was a succesful president or not (We can't even tell if Bush's presidency was a success or failure yet. If we use the economic numbers as our major metirc, as you seem to be doing with Obama, Bush was a dismal failure. I reject that nonsense, though, and I can't say for certain. History will tell with both.).
Upon what do you base your statement that Bush was a dismal failure? How about some unbiased data? Historians will judge Bush a lot different than those who claim he was a failure. The non partisan results don't show a failure. TARP according to many saved the economy. How can anyone blame the President alone for the financial meltdown? Where was Obama and the Democrat Congress?
Interesting that you make statements parroting the MSM without looking at the Alaska economy and her poll numbers there. That just parrots the MSM.so on one hand, we have someone who was mayor of a donut shop and faileda s a governor of a lightly populated state.
Obama is from the Chicago Political Machine. I spent a lot of time in Chicago and it is the most corrupt political machine in the country. Obama won because of that machine and because he had a D after his name. Name for me any accomplishment as a state or U.S. Senator?On the other, we have a perosn who may or may not have been a failure or success as potus, but at least has expereince as POTUS. HE was also involved in state politics for a heavily populated district of Chicago and was a Senator for Illinois.
How can someone so brilliant take an economy and lose 4 million jobs and add 3 trillion to the debt? On that issue I assure you Palin wouldn't have thrown the stimulus money down a big hole or signed Obamacare. She wouldn't have bailed out teacher's unions or taken over GM/chrysler.As a former small business owner, if these are my choices of employees I'm going to hire, it seems fairly easy which one is more qualified for the job based on tehir work-history alone.
Maybe not my optimal choices, but the more qualified candidate based on expereince is pretty easy to determine.
If we take educational qualifications into account as well, assuming it correlates to intellignece and intelligence is a qualification for the job, Obama slaughters Palin.
I would almost vote for Palin simply due to the vitriol on the part of the left, but given the choice between the Obama results and the Palin resume, I would take Palin.Now, if we take other factors into consideration, things other than actual qualifications for the job (things like partisan politics, then it's possible someone could pretend that Palin is more qualified than Obama to be POTUS at this point in time.
That sitting President will have to run on his results and based upon those results he needs to go back to Chicago.If someone prefers Palin because of her political beliefs, so be it, but don't pretend she is remotely qualified for the job, and don't try to pretend she is now more qualified than a sitting president is. That's just lunacy.
Translation, I love how he talks and don't care about the results.I prefer it a more intellectually honest argumetn of "I really hate Obama's politics. I'd rather have soemone who isn't qualified that I agree with than a person who is somewhat qualified that I don't."
Qualifications today regarding Obama are irrelevant, he got the job. we are seeing the results of electing someone who lacked the qualifications to do the job. Palin couldn't do any worse.Of course, that might require admitting that the attacks on Obama's qualifications were simply partisan bull**** when they happened prior to him being elected, because ultimately, people support the person they agree with more and they really don't give a flying **** about their qualifications.
I mean, as far as actual qalifications for a job go, there's no greater thing on the resume than actually having had the same job before.
Don't know who will be the GOP Candidate in 2012 but I assure you that the Obama agenda is bankrupting the country and is unsustainable. The country spoke on Nov. 2 so more and more people are waking up. When I vote in 2012 I will look at the resume of the candidate running against Obama and the Obama results. If that candidate is Palin, which I doubt, I will vote for Palin and almost any Republican over Obama. The results matter, not the message.There are three people alive today who will be elligible for the office in 2012 who have held it before. Bush Sr., Jimmy Carter, and Obama. These are the three most qualified people for the job, resume-wise.
If age is used as a disqualification, then that leaves us with one qualified candiate, resume-wise.
I also like how it was only Bush's bailout that helped the economy.. not Obama's.. lol. As I said, everybody in politics slides the responsibility when things are bad and tries to take credit when things are good. It's no different for politicians who come form a business background.
Last edited by SheWolf; 11-17-10 at 04:07 PM.
What did Obama do to save the economy since economists and Warren Buffet say it was TARP?