Fresh from the Memory Hole
Wow. The New York Times must really like Sarah Palin:
Where is it written that only senators are qualified to become President?...Or where is it written that mere representatives aren’t qualified?...Where is it written that governors and mayors...are too local, too provincial?...Presidential candidates have always chosen their running mates for reasons of practical demography, not idealized democracy…. What a splendid system, we say to ourselves, that takes little-known men, tests them in high office and permits them to grow into statesmen. . . . Why shouldn’t a little-known woman have the same opportunity to grow?. . . .the indispensable credential for a Woman Who is the same as for a Man Who – one who helps the ticket.
Oh, wait...my bad. This editorial (slightly edited by me) is from the Times on July 3, 1984, and refers specifically to the prospects of Geraldine Ferraro.(h/t Dr. Sanity)
posted by VermontGuy @ 7:25 AM
6 Comments:
"Experience" is a fool's game. The only relevant experience issue to come out of the last week is the guy who seemed be saying he cared about it, showed that he didn't (flipped his line quicker than CP on Hitler in 1941) and its just another bullshit political word like "fair" "strong" ....pick your shibboleth.
There was a great montage on The Daily Show showing Rove and others giving directly contradictory assessments of what is valid "experience." E.g., Tim Kaine was "only governer for 3 years" (of Virginia); and his experience as a mayor of a city of two hundred thousand evoked a list of all the penny ante American cities that were bigger (e.g., Chula Vista, CA). Thus, if he were chosen as (Obama's) VP, it would be purely a "political" decision that did not take experience into account.
Every commentator should be forced to evaluate what they are saying and comparing it to what they would say if the party was reversed. I will not vote for the Republican ticket, but I think Sarah Palin's accomplishments are impressive and I am in favor of drawing smart people from a variety of backgrounds without assuming one kind of "experience" is right. (On the other hand, I did not care for her diminishment of "community organizing." It's time city people -- the majority of "true" Americans and the ones that support rural areas financially -- stand up to this implicit "nerdism.")
Yes, the experience of one presidential candidate versus another is a big deal. It isn't really the same thing at all for a Veep, who may come in with anything except experience, since that's the one thing the Veep will be guaranteed to get.
Meanwhile, Obama spat upon everythikng he said he believed in. His WHOLE essense, his raison d'etre, was he was the only one running who opposed the Iraq war from the start, yet he picks a guy who supportd it. His main campaign theme was change, then he picked one of Washington's longest-serving veterans. I don't recall New England Guy nothing this when he picked Biden.
I think nothing matches the hypocrisy of the Dems on how important war experience is now versus 2004.
Except, mayhaps, the hypocrisy of Reps on how important war experience isn't now versus 2004. NEGuy's got it right -- you'll find important what you want to find important when it's convenient to do so.
Oh, and the Daily Show montage that anon. #1 cited is really, truly worth watching.
Post a Comment
<< Home