Sunday, August 31, 2008

Democrats' Reality Warp On Sarah Palin

Democrats smear Republicans. It's part of the democratic process. Smearing goes back to Federalist days. I can't prove this, but my guess is that the volume of smearing directly relates to the quality of the candidate. The better the candidate the more the smearing volume. In the case of Sarah Palin, the volume has been high. Oddly, the Democrats chose to emphasize Ms. Palin's experience. But the Democratic nominee, Senator Obama, has experience at most slightly greater than Governor Palin's. But she is running for the number two, not the number one spot. Moreover, Mr. McCain has evened the age difference, attracted conservatives and likely attracted women.

For instance, on the Huffington Post, Warren Goldstein raises the issue of:

"Sarah Palin's qualifications to be president of the United States -- that's right, President."

and concludes

"We can hardly be expected to take seriously her track record: being mayor of a town of 9,000, and less than a year of being governor of a state with fewer residents than 19 American cities (if it were a city, Alaska would rank just above Baltimore, just below Charlotte)."

I checked Ms. Palin's biography on Wikipedia and learned that she assumed office in December 2006, so Mr. Goldstein is facutally inaccurate. She will have two, not one year of experience when her vice presidential term begins in 2009. 2007 + 2008 = two, not one year.

Let us compare Ms. Palin's experience to some other vice-presidential candidates in history. Let us start with a worst case scenario: twentieth century vice-presidents who assumed office because of a president's death. In 1900, Theodore Roosevelt ran as Vice President under William McKinley following exactly two years as governor of New York. Previous to that he had been assistant secretary of the navy and police commissioner of New York City. In other words, his experience was of the same order of magnitude as Ms. Palin's.

Let us compare Ms. Palin to a second vice-presidential candidate who later became president, Calvin Coolidge. Prior to running as vice-president in 1921, Mr. Coolidge had served for exactly two years, the same as Ms. Palin, as Governor of Massachusetts. Prior to that he had been lieutenant governor for three years. When he assumed the presidency in 1923 (following President Warren G. Harding's untimely death) he had roughly the same experience, excepting the three years as lieutenant governor, that Ms. Palin would have under similar circumstances.

A third example is Harry S. Truman. Truman had been US Senator for ten years. A longer term than both Palin and Obama.

When Franklin D. Roosevelt ran for president of the United States in 1932, he had been governor of New York for three years, one year more than Governor Palin, and like his cousin TR, had been assistant secretary of the navy for seven years and a member of the New York State Senate for two. From the standpoint of significant prior executive experience, his resume was not that different from Ms. Palin's.

Now let us look at Senator Obama. He would have four years as US Senator and seven years as an Illinois state senator. He has no prior executive experience and only four years of legislative experience at the federal level. He would be going into the president's job with slightly more experience than Ms. Palin. He would be among the most inexperienced presidential candidates of the twentieth century. With only two years' additional experience as vice president, Ms. Palin's experience level, emphasizing executive-level experience, would be comparable to most other vice presidents' who have assumed the office of president. In contrast, Mr. Obama's experience is among the weakest because he lacks executive experience. Moreover, Governor Palin is running for number two, whereas Senator Obama is running for number one.

The great presidents include Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Jackson, Cleveland, Roosevelt, and Roosevelt.

Of these,

Washington had no prior political experience (other than briefly as a member of the Continental Congress) but had been the commander in chief for seven years.

Thomas Jefferson had considerable experience, having been governor of Virginia for two years, delegate to the Second Continental Congress, United States Ambassador to France, and Secretary of State when he became Vice President under John Adams in 1797.

Andrew Jackson had been Congressman for one year and Senator for six months, as well as a military officer in the War of 1812 and the First Seminole War before running for president.

Lincoln had two years of legislative experience and no executive experience when he assumed the presidency. In other words, he had less experience than Governor Palin and Senator Obama.

Grover Cleveland had been Governor of New York for two years, and Mayor of Buffalo, NY for one.

Theodore Roosevelt had been Governor of New York for two years, assistant secretary of the navy and police commissioner.

Franklin D. Roosevelt had been Governor of New York for three years, assistant secretary of the navy for seven and a Senator for two.

The foregoing were among the best presidents that we have had, and only Jefferson and Washington had significantly more experience than Governor Palin. Lincoln had less even than Mr. Obama.

However, all of the foregoing had demonstrated competence at some executive position. In Andrew Jackson's case it was military leadership (albeit controversial military leadership). In all other cases except Lincoln there had been some executive experience. Mr. Obama has no executive experience whatsoever.

Larry Johnson of No Quarter USA
is among the few Democrats who is willing to confront reality. The mainstream media, an organ of the Democratic Party, has chosen to emphasize the experience issue with respect to Governor Palin but not with respect to Senator Obama. Yet with four years of senatorial experience, Mr. Obama has less relevant experience than Ms. Palin, who has two years of executive experience. Johnson writes:

There is an unwillingness in many quarters, including the DNC, the MSM, the left wing blogosphere, Air America radio and others to acknowledge what is painfully obvious to those of us at No Quarter, which is that there are a lot of loyal Democrats who are seriously considering voting Republican in the fall.

I am not sure of why the mass media has gone ga ga over Obama. This is the same mass media that believed Walter Duranty when he thought that Stalin was a hero in the 1930s, that trusted Castro and that backed the overthrow of Diem in Vietnam. The American media has a proven record of blistering incompetence. The American public is wise to ignore the media's soap.


Diogenes said...

Funny you should mention teddy Roosevelt....

Roosevelt was the popular governor of a state where people actually live (unlike Alaska). The Republican Party brass didn't care for him, so they slotted him into the VP position, thinking he'd be kept in a deep freeze for four or eight years, and his career wouold be frozen on arrival. Only one guy, Mark Hanna, tried to warn them that, if they put Roosevelt in this spot, he'd be a heartbeat from the presidency. And, lo and behold, McKinley's heartbeat stopped.

Palin would have to go on to Michael Phelps' 12,000 calorie per day diet for about a month just to qualify as a lightweight.

Pinni said...

If I had to choose one reason why McCain's pick was a good one, it would be the following: he is allowing the Democrats to dig a hole for themselves, which will be followed by an ad blitz, designed by Rove and his protege, pushing them in.

McCain's pick illustrates that the Presidential candidate is supposed to be more experienced than the Vice-Presidential candidate, unlike the Obama-Biden ticket, where the inverse is true. elaborates on this point quite well:

"Because (from a recent MorOn.Org email) it makes Democrats say things like this:

I think she's far too inexperienced to be in this position. I'm all for a woman in the White House, but not one who hasn't done anything to deserve it. There are far many other women who have worked their way up and have much more experience that would have been better choices. This is a patronizing decision on John McCain's part- and insulting to females everywhere that he would assume he'll get our vote by putting "A Woman" in that position.—Jennifer M., Anchorage, AK

Let's do some subtle re-writing so that you can see why this makes me giggle so:

I think he's far too inexperienced to be in this position. I'm all for an African-American in the White House, but not one who hasn't done anything to deserve it. There are far many other African-Americans who have worked their way up and have much more experience that would have been better choices. This is a patronizing decision on the Democratic Party's part - and insulting to African-Americans everywhere that they would assume they'll get our vote by putting "An African-American" in that position.

Look for Jennifer's PKB (pot - kettle - black -- argument in various forms everywhere."

Mitchell Langbert said...

I agree, Pinni. I'm changing your grade to A++! :) When Warren G. Harding picked Calvin Coolidge, Coolidge had only two years as governor under his belt too. The reason Harding picked him was that there had been a police strike in Boston and Coolidge stood up to the strike, winning national publicity. That was his only claim to fame at the time. Abraham Lincoln had only one or two congressional terms under his belt, that's all. Was it patronizing to males or to Americans that Lincoln was nominated as the first Republican? What's going on is that the media has become partisan, and so selects issues for emphasis based on party rather than on the news.

USpace said...

In endorsing Obama, at least the MSM can be seen as consistent. This is going to be fun. History will be made, one way or another, and it looks more likely now that it will be the right history.

Even more Hillary supporters will go for McCain now. Obama is no longer a near certainty. Heaven forbid something happens to McCain, but I believe Palin would rise to the occasion. She has the right attitude. Everyone knows Obama is NOT ready for POTUS, Palin is only for the VP. Look at Dan Quayle.

YEY SARAH PALIN! YEY John McCain! Great pick! The 1st woman for the GOP VP? SCORE!

She's conservative! SCORE! She's a Governor! SCORE! She's pro-drilling! She's a hunter! SCORE! She's a hockey Mom and played basketball in school! SCORE! She's pro-life! And she respects women! SCORE! She fights corruption! SCORE! She's high-energy! SCORE! She's tough! SCORE! She's got 5 kids! SCORE! Her son is going to Iraq in the Armed Forces! SCORE! She's married to a Blue-collar professional! SCORE! She's smart! SCORE! She's young! SCORE!

And she's a Hotty to boot! SCORE! The Left is going to go nuts! SCORE!
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
never elect a woman

who's a conservative
she's just a gender traitor

absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
just HOPE to pay more taxes

DREAM about high fuel prices
CHANGE PROGRESS to move backwards

All real freedom starts with freedom of speech. Without freedom of speech, there can be no real freedom.
Philosophy of Liberty Cartoon
Help Halt Terrorism Today!


Virginia Harris said...

Senator Clinton and Governor Palin are proof that women can and do diverge on important issues.

Even on the question of whether women should vote!

Most people are totally in the dark about HOW the suffragettes won votes for women, and what life was REALLY like for women before they did.

Suffragettes were opposed by many women who were what was known as 'anti.'

The most influential 'anti' lived in the White House. First Lady Edith Wilson was a wealthy Washington widow who married President Wilson in 1915.

Her role in Wilson's decision to jail and torture Alice Paul and hundreds of other suffragettes will never be fully known, but she was outraged that these women picketed her husband's White House.

"The Privilege of Voting" is a new free e-mail series that follows eight great women from 1912 - 1920 to reveal ALL that happened to set the stage for women to win the vote. It's a real-life soap opera!

Suffragettes Alice Paul and Emmeline Pankhurst are featured, along with TWO gorgeous presidential mistresses, First Lady Edith Wilson, Edith Wharton, Isadora Duncan and Alice Roosevelt.

There are tons of heartache on the rocky road to the ballot box, but in the end, women WIN!

Thanks to the success of the suffragettes, women can now support the candidates they choose -- left, right, in-between or GREEN!

Exciting, sequential e-mail episodes are perfect to read on coffeebreaks, or anytime.

Subscribe free at