im sorry john but apocalyptic fundamentalism is a deal breaker for me and it should be for you too. you can attempt to make it all sound mainstream and normal but we both know it isnt. if you want to vote for churchy spice thats your business but dont come around me trying to say what happens in that church is normal xtian worship practices.

next

sorry john but apocalyptic fundamentalism is a deal breaker for me, the fact that its not for you shows the total moral bankruptcy and anything to win attitude of your party.

Palin should head south to San Diego where she can peer through the border fence and gain some additional foreign policy experience.

lbresident: This seems to be the first and only time that I'm aware of that a candidate for VP, from any party, has ever been scrutinized as to foreign policy experience.

This sort of begs the obvious question for me: If this wasn't ever important before, why now?

The answer seems equally obvious: "Because it is politically expedient for some Democrats that it be so".

It's difficult to find Democrat parallels to Palin as a VP candidate. Surprisingly, very few Governors have become VP's most; like Carter, Reagan and Clinton, seem to get elected as President instead. But there's no evidence that anyone questioned Indiana Governor Thomas R. Marshall's absence of foreign policy experience as he campaigned for, or after he was elected to, the VP seat (1913-1921).

Neither did anyone seem to mind Agriculture Secretary Henry A. Wallace's clear lack of foreign policy experience as he campaigned for, or after he was elected to, the VP seat (1941-1945).

So don't fret about Palin's lack of foreign policy experience, lbresident. If elected, she will have full access to all of the same dozens and dozens of foreign policy advisors and staff that McCain will.

Palin's foreign policy experience will come as Carter's did, and as Reagan's did, and as Clinton's did...on the job. That was apparently good enough for them, as Presidents.

I'm certain it will more than suffice for Palin, as VP.

Possibly because her running mate is as old as a 1936 Chevrolet and he has a history of health issues. And it's not so much her experience as a lack of understanding of international affairs (ridiculously apparent every time she goes off script), and which, despite your blind repetition of neocon talking points (are you seriously comparing any candidate from 1945 to now?), it is entirely ludicrous to compare Palin to Carter, Regan, or Clinton's experience.

Seriously, President Palin? She can't even handle Katie Couric.

I agree - who cares about Palin's foreign non-record, when her actual record consists of immoral (as well as ignorant) domestic deeds and policies.

Care to be a little more specific, there, Joe?

Since it's the Home Depot Center, she can add expertise in construction and labor relations to her resume.

So are you alleging that Palin's resume' is somehow less than accurate or otherwise fallacious, Andy? If so, would your care to cite any specific examples?

Nope. She's never said that she was anything more than a beauty pageant runner-up, a hack small-town mayor that racked up $20 million in long-term debt for a sports complex, and a vindictive and petty governor that appointed her high-school classmate to the head of the state Ag Dept. because "she loves cows."

But don't take my word, here's Kathleen Parker from the uptighty-righty National Review Online in her call for Palin to quit:

"If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself."

She's not qualified to be president. And Grandpa picked her.


"

Hmm....Palin really said those things about herself, did she? I missed have missed those interviews.

You seem a lillte bitter, there, Andy. I'm wondering why. I think I've demonstrated that Palin meets and, in some cases, exceeds the standard for qualification to run for V.P. that we've applied to every other such candidate from either party.

So why the annoyance with Palin?

Double standard much?

Avoid the facts, much?

This is about discussing Sarah Palin's "qualifications", not whether she's more or less qualified than Dan Quayle or the Whig Party's 1840 choice, John Tyler (who became president, BTW).

Your logic train just ran off the rails. Nice try, though.

In reviewing all of my comments, I'm not seeing any indication that I avoided any facts.

I see where I asked for specific examples but received none. I see where I present facts that demonstrate that Palin's no less qualified than many who have run for, and won, the V.P seat in the past but been conveniently ignored.

When discussing a person's qualifications it makes sense to conduct a comparative analysis between that person and others who have aspired to the same position. Thus I did so. I believe I have demonstrated that Palin compares very favorably. Certainly there have been other candidates who have been more qualified, but there have also been many who have been considerably less so. Yet, as mentioned, no one questioned the qualifications of those in the latter group. So, again, why the double-standard?

People that most tend to challenge Palin's qualifications seem to fall into 2 distinct categories: Those who would not accept her no matter how qualified she was and those who would not accept her because they feel she isn't qualified *enough*. I believe I have demonstrated that she is better qualified than others who have run for, and won, the seat previously. By that historical (and logical) standard, then, she is sufficiently qualified to run.

That you persist in disputing this seems to indicate that you are among those who will not accept her no matter how qualified she is.

In short, I see where I have done everything reasonable to maintain a logical discourse on this topic but have had no cooperation from you in that attempt.

Next?

Well, when President Palin greets the General Assembly of the UN, by starting with "Guys and Gals," you'll be validated.

But in the meantime, those of us who don't love the sound of our own typing nearly as much as you, won't be surprised when they pull a Harriet Miers and yank this twit off the ticket.

And, by the way, logical discourse is more than restating your previous points over and over and over...

So if I understand you correctly; Your concern isn't that Palin's not qualified to be V.P. (when I've presented evidence that she is) but that she's not qualified to be President (an office she is not running for).

Yip, that sure sounds logical to me!

I do find it interesting that rather then engage with me honestly in the arena of ideas, you seem to feel you must stoop to personal insults and name calling. That approach seems more than a little bit disingenuous, but maybe that's just me.

Logical discourse requires at least two people who are willing to remain intellectually honest and exchange their ideas in a respectful and logical manner.

I feel I brought that to the table in this case while you, on the other hand, never seem to have made it into the room.

If at some point you'd care to offer some actual facts to support your contentions, I'd be all to happy to read them and respond.

Otherwise, how about finding someone else to try to insult?

Can't we just be honest here? Palin is NOT QUALIFIED TO HOLD ANY POSITION WHATSOEVER.

Frankly we are all supposed to be fans of some concept called "meritocracy." Not every citizen should be considered intelligent enough or qualified to hold public office just because Grandpa says so.

For example: I am an ELITIST. Yes. It is true. I have a f*cking PhD in goddamn Astrophysics. Sarah Palin has no business actually attempting to do any Astrophysics. I think even John_B might be willing to agree to this. Well why can't we all, just for a moment, put aside questions of party affiliation and partisanship and just frigging admit that Palin really doesn't sound intelligent enough to hold the office of VP...

... let alone EVER be the tie-breaking vote in the Senate!

She may not be running for president, but we must all realize that she would take that position in the event something happened to McCain. The possibility that a president may die in office always exists, regardless of the age and health of the president. What if the perfectly healthy McCain were assassinated? Palin would then be president. Let's not be cavalier about the VP position, it may often appear the VP doesn't do much, but they are still #2 in command of the US.

Citizen Journalist Quote of the Day – “The qualifications for the vice presidency are the same as those for the presidency. The vice president must be a native-born American of at least 35 years of age who has resided in the United States for at least 14 years."

(Source: MSN Encarta Encyclopedia, Qualifications for Vice President of the United States.)

(Dr.) Kelson: If you choose to be 'honest'; the fact that Palin has held a position (Mayor), and currently holds another (Governor), would seem de-facto refutation of your position that she is 'not qualified' to hold one.

The fact that she was elected to both of those positions, not by 'Grandpa', but by a majority of the voters involved would seem to indicate that those voters felt she was sufficiently qualified to hold them. Although this election will be more about McCain v. Obama, perhaps sufficient numbers of voters will feel Palin is thus qualified come November as well.

If true, I think it's most commendable that you have achieved a PhD in astrophysics and you have my genuine respect for having done so. But knowledge does not necessarily equate to wisdom. I certainly agree that Palin is not qualified to "do any astrophysics" as you put it. But she's not running for astrophysicist, she's running for V.P. and, I believe, is sufficiently qualified to do so...and to serve in that position if elected, and to serve well.

Do you feel that being a poor communicator is a true measure of one's intelligence? Dr's. Einstein and Hawking might both strongly disagree with you. Do you feel that being a poor communicator (and I disagree that Palin is) should disqualify one from running for, or serving as, V.P? Then by that standard neither Quayle, Mondale or Ford should have run or so served...but they did. And, guess what? Our great nation managed to survive all of them.

My defense of Palin (here) is not about party affiliation, Kelson. It's about a logical analysis of the facts surrounding her candidacy. I happen to think Biden would make a horrible V.P, but that doesn't make him unqualified to run. I happen to think Obama would make a terrible and tragic President, but he is certainly qualified to run for the office.

Palin would not have been my first choice as a running mate for McCain. McCain, in fact, was not my preference as a Presidential candidate. That said, I believe its clear that Palin is qualified to run, and to serve, as V.P. Those who disagree would be better served to offer facts, rather than personal attacks, and to rebut my offerings of fact with factual offerings of their own.

If it is your goal to pursuade me (and others) of your position, then I submit you might be far more successful by employing reason, rather than rhetoric.

YOu're joking, right?

Einstein and Hawking might disagree? Both of them are excellent communicators but that is beside the point.

When someone is speaking, their unclear and muddle communications are a direct result and consequence of their own unclear and muddle thoughts. Our thoughts are actually intimately tied to the language with which we have proficiency. Unclear use of language is simply the product of poorly stored ideas and concepts.

And I think there is ample evidence that your VP candidate was not qualified to be Mayor and Governer --- being elected didn't make George Bush qualified either so you cannot invoke the simple facts of elections as evidence of qualification for office.

Really, dude, you astound me.

Kelson: You don't seem to be communicating very well.

Are you quite certain you're qualified to be an astrophysicist?

Seriously, you must visit the Huffington Post and check out the footage of Sarah Palin as a beauty pageant contestant, and then ask yourself if you want her to be your president.

LB_City_Girl: I fully understand your concerns in the areas you've addressed in both your posts. And I have already acknowledged that Palin would not have been my 1st choice as a running mate for McCain. What I dispute is the contention from some that she is not qualified to run, for, clearly, she is.

Yes, Palin was a pageant contestant before she was a Mayor and a Governor. Reagan, arguably one of the greatest Presidents this nation has ever seen, was a B-movie actor before he led S.A.G. before he was Governor before he was President.

Will Palin ever be that sort of leader? I truly don't know. But if we had written Reagan off like some are now writing off Palin, we likely would never have seen the collapse of the Soviet Union, the subsequent liberation of millions of oppressed Europeans and the rise and success of what we now know as the European Union.

It'd be nice if folks would just be honest and simply say they just don't like her. That's by no means a disqualifier, but at least it would be truthful.

I'm voting for Obama.

And it's nothing "personal" about me liking Palin, in fact, in person she and I would probably really click--I have the same hairstyle, wear glasses, and am a sports Mom!

She just simply should not be VP--it's like a bad after school special or something. "Like OMG! my mom just became President and it's like, sooooooooooooooo embarrassing!"

Exactly. Golly gee, guys-n-gals.