Susan's Place Logo

News:

Please be sure to review The Site terms of service, and rules to live by

Main Menu

Palin to Resign as Governor of Alaska

Started by lisagurl, July 03, 2009, 03:09:38 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

tekla

So why pick someone unprepared? 

And I don't think that even cramming with the best minds she could buy, Sara would ever be as involved or prepared as Obama was before he even thought about starting.  Huge difference between Columbia and Harvard Law and six years at five various colleges no one has ever head of getting a journalism degree.  No comparison.  But I don't think that effects her supporters, in fact, they like that about her.  But outside of her base, I don't see her winning votes beyond that.  Matter of fact I think a lot of the things that her base (and I read them all the time over at FreeRepublic) really likes about her that do not turn negative when taken outside of that base.

See, the worst part of it is, for the 'Pubs, (I kind of like it) is that I know that General George Patton was right (about a lot of stuff) on when he said America loves a winner. America will not tolerate a loser.  And a huge part of being a loser is not finishing what you start.  That is part of the resignation deal, and also part of the five colleges in six years deal.  It gives the impression (and national political stuff is largely an impression deal) of being flaky.

I think that a key difference between Sebelius and Palin is that perhaps (and Sebelius was not picked, most likely for that very reason) Sebelius might have listened to those who were there to help her.  Perhaps the harshest thing in the Vanity Fair article is the constant drumbeat of her not listening to the advice of those who actually knew something about running a national election.

And this step shows all the handmarks of that kind of non-critical thinking.  Sloppy, poorly executed, no real reasons given, and no tradition followed.

Not that it would have mattered.  The reason that Obama and Clinton fought tooth and nail for that nomination was that whoever got it was going to win the Presidency almost no matter what.  Bush didn't just mess up, he messed up so bad that no Republican was going to win. (That and there was/is a sea level change in American culture - and politics is a reflection of culture always - going on, and they were on the side of the past, not the future.  That always makes it an uphill fight.)
FIGHT APATHY!, or don't...
  •  

Tammy Hope

Quote
So why pick someone unprepared? 

A valid point of view if you are willing to exclude a huge part of the talent base.

the only one's prepared would be members of Congress, or defeated candidates for the nomination. (and a lot of members of Congress probably wouldn't be but it's there job to be so it's on them)
Quote
And I don't think that even cramming with the best minds she could buy, Sara would ever be as involved or prepared as Obama was before he even thought about starting.  Huge difference between Columbia and Harvard Law and six years at five various colleges no one has ever head of getting a journalism degree.  No comparison.

Meh. that's just elitism as far as I'm concerned, with all due respect. I'm not someone who's  swept away by "Ivy League credentials"

I can see your further argument about "flakyness" - that's a valid point. But I refuse to limit the presidency to folks with Ivy league educations.


On the other hand...
Quote
The reason that Obama and Clinton fought tooth and nail for that nomination was that whoever got it was going to win the Presidency almost no matter what.  Bush didn't just mess up, he messed up so bad that no Republican was going to win.
there's no denying THAT.
Disclaimer: due to serious injury, most of my posts are made via Dragon Dictation which sometimes butchers grammar and mis-hears my words. I'm also too lazy to closely proof-read which means some of my comments will seem strange.


http://eachvoicepub.com/PaintedPonies.php
  •  

RebeccaFog


I agree with Tekla that something big is coming Palin's way. It most likely is a handful of possibly serious legal problems.

Or, there is something personal that is big with her. Maybe a family illness or something.

I have no opinion of Palin other than she really is not qualified to run the country, however, that opinion is meaningless as Bush was also not qualified.

    The Levi Johnston kid is putting out a book about the 'secrets' of the Palin family. It may be nothing, just that she refused to serve her kids salt at dinner, but what if it involves a lizard and a can of creamed corn?  I guess that's another possible reason to hide out.
    I don't really believe the kid has anything meaningful to say about the family, though.
  •  

tekla

Oh good, I get to make one of my favorite lectures. 

In the crew room of one of the clubs I work at (the extremely famous and legendary one) someone wrote on the wall: You don't get trained here, you get here trained.  Most shows we use five people, between us, we have about 150 years of experience doing live music shows.  There is not a single person that you can't tell to do something that they can't do - that they haven't done thousands of times. I work at (and have worked at) a lot of places that were not like that, that did not have that level of training and experience, and it makes a huge difference.  Why should I expect less out of people who want to be President of the United States - easily, one of the most powerful jobs in the world - then I do out of stagehands?

Because, what that experience has taught me (among other things) is that:
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; in practice there is.

So a little real world experience ain't a bad deal, in reality.

As for the Ivy League (and bunch of other places too besides the seven brothers and the seven sisters) education.  OK, its not a deal maker, or breaker for me.  But, it does say something.  I've been to both public and private colleges, taught at HUGE public universities, private colleges and Community Colleges (as well as AP high school classes) and there is a difference.  The best courses I ever taught were the ROTC classes in military history.  Because . . .  I had the best students in them.  Smart, dedicated, motivated - I could not pitch anything over their heads, because there was very little that was over their heads.  The better - more prepared, more well studied - the students were, the better I could be. And the people I know who went to major schools, Stanford, Harvard (the Stanford of the East), Auburn, Georgetown, Notre Dame and all that are - if not the smartest people I know - the best at applying everything they can summon to getting the job done. 

Granted even a crappy student can get a third rate education at Yale, we've just lived though eight years of that.  But a really good student is going to be challenged at a major uni far more than they would be at the local community college, bet on it. Auburn on the whole has better students and better professors than Itta Bena does. (Even though my favorite wide receiver in the history of football came from Itta Bena).  Or maybe that is the point.  Really great schools have crappy sports - Catholic Universities excepted - and some of the best, like University of Chicago, don't even have a sports program at all, they do Nobel Laureates and Pulitzer Prize winners instead.  And I'm no doubt wrong about Itta Bena, I'm sure the predominantly African-American student population there worked very hard to be there, and even harder to get out - I should have said, Yazoo Community College.

And, (and this is very key) five colleges in six years (aside from showing that one can't really commit and/or finish anything) also robs the student of any real chance at education they might have had.  My reward for being picked on by the other students in grade and high school was to be picked on by the professors in college. They - like I did when I taught - sought out the best students, and made them do more, work harder, learn more and really work to expand themselves.  When I taught students would get some sort of general writing assignment.  The ones I really liked, I gave special topics to.  Ones that were harder, more difficult, and often from the opposite perspective they were comfortable with.  I made them reach, like my best professors did to me. I'm sure Obama got that treatment all the way though, I'm just as sure Palin never did.

If you think it does not make a difference, then you don't know what it is you're talking about.
FIGHT APATHY!, or don't...
  •  

lisagurl

QuoteAs for the Ivy League (and bunch of other places too besides the seven brothers and the seven sisters) education.

You might like "Lost in the Meritocracy"
  •  

Tammy Hope

QuoteI'm sure Obama got that treatment all the way though, I'm just as sure Palin never did.

Seems likely.

I'll be glad when he starts applying that training by making some actual smart decisions.

Disclaimer: due to serious injury, most of my posts are made via Dragon Dictation which sometimes butchers grammar and mis-hears my words. I'm also too lazy to closely proof-read which means some of my comments will seem strange.


http://eachvoicepub.com/PaintedPonies.php
  •  

tekla

I'm just saying he got that deal, that kind of treatment, by being in one college long enough for his professors to get to know him.  I'm sure there were professors who he took 3, 4, 5 classes from.  That's hard to do when you are skipping around.
FIGHT APATHY!, or don't...
  •