Conservative. Idaho. Software engineer. Historian. Trying to prevent Idiocracy from becoming a documentary.
Email complaints/requests about copyright infringement to clayton @ claytoncramer.com. Reminder: the last copyright troll that bothered me went bankrupt.
"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose." -- Rom. 8:28
Yes, I evaluate other prospective candidates by the same metrics:
1. Level of knowledge about world affairs, economics, and history. Palin scores very well in this area--better than Reagan and George W. Bush and way better than Barack "Austrian" Obama.
2. Experience in an executive position of a large government. Palin outscores Obama in 2008 on this one, but not Reagan in 1980 or W in 2000.
3. Ability to speak and present her point of view in public speeches. Palin is well above W on this, and not much inferior (if any) to Reagan. She is easily the equal of Obama + teleprompter, and far superior to Obama left to his own limited wits.
4. Ability to engage effectively with hostile reporters. Palin is weak in this area, although better than Reagan. I have read her explanation of what happened with the Katie Couric interview, and to be honest, it is a very weak excuse that she gives. I am convinced that she is capable of doing better--but this is an area where experience matters.
Believe me: I really like Palin. I wish that there had been some way for her to stay in the governor's office in Alaska. She would be a much more powerful contender because of it. We may not have anyone stronger to lead with in this election. I wish that we did.
She can't be LESS qualified than Obama.
ReplyDeleteIf you believe she "isn't qualified" to be President:
ReplyDelete1. Have you thought carefully about exactly what "qualified" means?
2. Do you evaluate other prospective candidates by the same metrics?
3. Do you believe that only long-time professional politicians can really be "qualified"?
Yes, I evaluate other prospective candidates by the same metrics:
ReplyDelete1. Level of knowledge about world affairs, economics, and history. Palin scores very well in this area--better than Reagan and George W. Bush and way better than Barack "Austrian" Obama.
2. Experience in an executive position of a large government. Palin outscores Obama in 2008 on this one, but not Reagan in 1980 or W in 2000.
3. Ability to speak and present her point of view in public speeches. Palin is well above W on this, and not much inferior (if any) to Reagan. She is easily the equal of Obama + teleprompter, and far superior to Obama left to his own limited wits.
4. Ability to engage effectively with hostile reporters. Palin is weak in this area, although better than Reagan. I have read her explanation of what happened with the Katie Couric interview, and to be honest, it is a very weak excuse that she gives. I am convinced that she is capable of doing better--but this is an area where experience matters.
Believe me: I really like Palin. I wish that there had been some way for her to stay in the governor's office in Alaska. She would be a much more powerful contender because of it. We may not have anyone stronger to lead with in this election. I wish that we did.