PBS Palin Poll

[Abu Jack]

Voted Yes. All tied up at 49%

[Razor]

I think the correct question in response to the "Palin isn't qualified to be Vice President" is what exactly are the "correct" qualifications, and where are they codified? If one can't expound upon those questions, they have absolutely no place to use "qualifications" as an argument for or against any candidate.

[jamber97]

Originally Posted by Penn

Jamber97
Is it possible you can explain how Obama is qualified to be president and that she's is not ?

I'm of the thought that one can be considered unqualified without a direct comparison to another.

I see Obama as being barely qualified for the job. I could see him fitting better in the VP slot for a term or two.

When I conduct an interview I screen initially based upon the resume but largely what comes into play is the face to face discussion and how that candidate handles the questions. Then there’s the probationary period where we see how they perform on the job.

I feel that Palin's resume was sufficient to warrant a probationary try out and has been found wanting and MCcain, Obama, Biden are struggling to stay afloat.

[USANick7]

Yes she is qualified for the Vice Presidency.

[greenberetTFS]

Last stats are 49% even....Sarah is definitely VP timber.

GB TFS

[jamber97]

Originally Posted by Razor

I think the correct question in response to the "Palin isn't qualified to be Vice President" is what exactly are the "correct" qualifications, and where are they codified? If one can't expound upon those questions, they have absolutely no place to use "qualifications" as an argument for or against any candidate.

You have to be a natural-born US Citizen (a citizen from birth - but not necessarily born in the USA, which is a common misconception).
You have to be at least 35 years of age.
You have to have resided in the US for the last 14 years.

Everything else is subjective. I would like a candidate to have a good grasp of the issues and to effectively be able to articulate their stance, be well educated in the areas of law and American History, proven track record of more than 2 years, have performed a substantial amount of public service prior to seeking office, no prior criminal background or punishment received, multicultural, be well respected, nondenominational, easy on the eyes just to name a few. My complete list is much longer, the more of these areas they cover, the better.

[afchic]

Originally Posted by jamber97

MCcain didn't pick Palin because her qualifications were her strong suit. The fact that she's not qualified to be president has nothing to do with Obama. Have you seen her interviews? She's coached like all politicians are and she still doesn't have much clue. I think she's the salt of the earth and think she's a great person. I would even go as far to say that I would feel comfortable having her as a close friend and neighbor but President of the United States, no way.

I can think of a few women here in Colorado Springs that are carbon copies of her and her views that I would feel more comfortable with as president.

Maybe the reason she looks unqualified to you is because all you bothered to do is watch the interviews. Had you taken the time to look up the original transcripts from said interviews you would see how highly edited the interviews were in an attempt to make her appear to be an idiot. The transcript show her to be very adept, intelligent, and articulate. But we wouldn't want that shown to the rest of the world because then they might have to actually listen to "Caribou Barbie" amd come to realize she is more than ready. WOuldn't be good for the Dems now would it???

I am interested in who you think in Colo Spgs would be better as president if they are carbon copies and have the same views. So what is it about Mrs. Palin that bothers you so much?? What is it about these women in Colo Spgs that you think they would be better qualified as VP? None of them have been mayor, and none of them have been a governor.

I would also like to hear just exactly why you don't think she is qualified. And "I just don't think she can do it" isn't an answer.

[jamber97]

Originally Posted by afchic

Maybe the reason she looks unqualified to you is because all you bothered to do is watch the interviews. Had you taken the time to look up the original transcripts from said interviews you would see how highly edited the interviews were in an attempt to make her appear to be an idiot. The transcript show her to be very adept, intelligent, and articulate. But we wouldn't want that shown to the rest of the world because then they might have to actually listen to "Caribou Barbie" amd come to realize she is more than ready. WOuldn't be good for the Dems now would it???

I am interested in who you think in Colo Spgs would be better as president if they are carbon copies and have the same views. So what is it about Mrs. Palin that bothers you so much?? What is it about these women in Colo Spgs that you think they would be better qualified as VP? None of them have been mayor, and none of them have been a governor.

I would also like to hear just exactly why you don't think she is qualified. And "I just don't think she can do it" isn't an answer.

I read the transcripts. I would rather see the video. Do you honestly think she's qualified to be president? I voted yes as VP.

[afchic]

Originally Posted by jamber97

I read the transcripts. I would rather see the video. Do you honestly think she's qualified to be president? I voted yes as VP.

See here is the rub....SHE ISN"T RUNNNING FOR POTUS, McCain is. And if worse came to worse and she had to take over, yes I think she is just as ready as Bush was, or Clinton was, or Regan was, or any other governor that has sat in that seat. Do you care to tell me how any of them were more qualified than she was, given they were all governors?

You still didn't answer my question on what exactly makes her unqualified in your eyes.

[ZonieDiver]

Originally Posted by jamber97

You have to be a natural-born US Citizen (a citizen from birth - but not necessarily born in the USA, which is a common misconception).
You have to be at least 35 years of age.
You have to have resided in the US for the last 14 years.

Everything else is subjective. I would like a candidate to have a good grasp of the issues and to effectively be able to articulate their stance, be well educated in the areas of law and American History, proven track record of more than 2 years, have performed a substantial amount of public service prior to seeking office, no prior criminal background or punishment received, multicultural, be well respected, nondenominational, easy on the eyes just to name a few. My complete list is much longer, the more of these areas they cover, the better.

These two qualifiers would have ruled out most of our recent presidents, including JFK, Clinton, and the current officeholder. I am also not sure what "multicultural" means in this context. I'm Irish and Scots. Does that count?

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by ZonieDiver

These two qualifiers would have ruled out most of our recent presidents, including JFK, Clinton, and the current officeholder. I am also not sure what "multicultural" means in this context. I'm Irish and Scots. Does that count?

I have to agree.

Why multicultural? That seems to be pretty racist, as compared to selecting the better qualified candidiate with the positions that more closely represent yours.

Nondenominational?

I thought that in America, your religion was irrelevant. At least it is supposed to when it comes to the Dim nominee.

Easy on the eyes?

That is really pretty shallow, isn't it?

Are you arguing seriously here, or just trolling?

TR

[Slantwire]

Originally Posted by jamber97

good grasp of the issues

What is a "good grasp?" And which issues? People have differing ideas about what they consider to be an issue - and a particular issue's importance relative to the others. Some people care more about immigration than gun rights, some people focus more on education. Or the economy, or whatever.

(Not commenting on those who figure gun rights will fix the "immigration problem".... )

Originally Posted by jamber97

effectively be able to articulate their stance

Effective articulation can be difficult. Especially after it's been heavily edited and redacted by a third party. Or when the teleprompter dies.

Originally Posted by jamber97

be well educated in the areas of law and American History

I'd agree those are two good topics to know. Personally, I'd consider them very important secondary "skills." Such knowledge will allow a leader to make a more informed decision, but over-analytical paralysis is fatal. The leader still has to have the character to make a decision.

My minor nit is that "well educated" is still a vague term. An ivory tower legal historian will probably not make Putin or Hu blink. Besides, an engineer who is a history buff may well be better versed than a history major who skated through. And people start getting snobby about school rankings when this topic comes up, as well.

Originally Posted by jamber97

proven track record of more than 2 years

What proof? Just the fact of having held office, or do you have some kind of performance metric in mind?

Originally Posted by jamber97

have performed a substantial amount of public service prior to seeking office

Harder to define than a lot of your other criteria. There's a very fine (and blurry) line between public service prior to seeking office, as opposed to public service to position oneself for seeking office. I'd put military, first responders, and maybe even the PTA in the first category. A year of law practice or community politicking goes into the latter, I'd say.

Originally Posted by jamber97

no prior criminal background or punishment received

I'll agree to this one.

Originally Posted by jamber97

multicultural

I don't see this one. And if I did need it, it would mean that we've never had a qualified president. Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt(s), Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Reagan and those other white guys just weren't multicultural enough.

Originally Posted by jamber97

be well respected

By whom? When? Everybody is disliked by someone. Obama is well respected, even revered, by many - and loathed by many others. Reagan was beloved by many, and reviled by others. Lincoln is well-respected now, but his election triggered half the country to walk out.

Originally Posted by jamber97

nondenominational

Why? To me, separation of church and state means that a Catholic president won't try to force the country to convert to Catholicism, or stuff government staffs with Catholics only. It doesn't mean that the president can't be Catholic. Or Jewish, Buddhist, or a Flying Spaghetti Monster worshiper.

Originally Posted by jamber97

easy on the eyes

If this was a major criteria, Kate Beckinsale would be running for her third term or so.

Like you said, subjective. You've stated that you consider Obama "barely qualified," and Palin "not qualified." Since you've stated your total assessment and your criteria, would you care to break down the scoring for us?

[USANick7]

Originally Posted by jamber97

You have to be a natural-born US Citizen (a citizen from birth - but not necessarily born in the USA, which is a common misconception).
You have to be at least 35 years of age.
You have to have resided in the US for the last 14 years.

Everything else is subjective. I would like a candidate to have a good grasp of the issues and to effectively be able to articulate their stance, be well educated in the areas of law and American History, proven track record of more than 2 years, have performed a substantial amount of public service prior to seeking office, no prior criminal background or punishment received, multicultural, be well respected, nondenominational, easy on the eyes just to name a few. My complete list is much longer, the more of these areas they cover, the better.

your going to have to explain "multicultural" and "nondenominational"

[Razor]

Originally Posted by jamber97

I see Obama as being barely qualified for the job. I could see him fitting better in the VP slot for a term or two.

Ok, how about this? What are BHO's qualifications (in detail, rather than the generalities offered last time)?

[Sigaba]

I believe that Razor nails the point.

Candidates for vice president are increasingly picked to perform certain roles. Most often, the role is to balance the ticket during the campaign. For example, Senator Mondale was tapped to balance the ticket geographically, ideologically (remember, there was and is a lot of confusion regarding Carter as a liberal), culturally, and, perhaps most significantly, to balance the outsider (Carter) with a Beltway insider.

In some cases, a person is selected as the VP candidate with a view to how an administration will operate. Eisenhower picked Nixon because he understood that Nixon was a firebrand whose rhetoric would satisfy the more strident critics of the Soviet Union while Ike pursued more moderate policies.

In Palin's case, I'm of the view that she was picked for both reasons. She balances the ticket by appealing to working women, culturally conservative Republicans, westerners, and non-urban Americans, among other demographic groups.

Moreover, Senator McCain selection of Gov. Palin indicates how seriously he's going to pursue an agenda centering around reform. As a sitting governor who has successfully taken on established, entrenched interests, Palin has proven herself as a politician who can and will advance McCain's agenda.

On a slightly different topic, I would like to address unfavorable perceptions of Gov. Palin's education and intellect. If one considers the smartest and most educated men to serve as president since 1898, one will see that as often as not, such individuals had less than stellar presidencies.

Despite his brilliance, Hoover never could inspire Americans in his ability to fix the economy. Because of his brilliance, Wilson believed that he did not need to make the political argument for the League of Nations. Similarly, Carter was so confident in his views (many of which remain under-appreciated) that he alienated his own party. Only TR, Eisenhower, and (as much as it pains to say) Clinton were able to leverage their intellects into expanding their popular appeal.

By the bye, the vice president who was least ready to assume the duties of the president was Harry S Truman. FDR thought so little of Truman that Stalin knew more about FDR's policies than Truman. Despite the fact that he faced an incredibly steep learning curve in 1945 and left the office as an exceptionally unpopular person, there is a growing consensus among scholars that Truman was an exceptional president.

Originally Posted by Razor

I think the correct question in response to the "Palin isn't qualified to be Vice President" is what exactly are the "correct" qualifications, and where are they codified? If one can't expound upon those questions, they have absolutely no place to use "qualifications" as an argument for or against any candidate.