Governor Sarah Palin Foreign Experience?
August 31st, 2008 | by Steve O |Check
2. Go on shopping spree in Shannon, Ireland (accounting for 1/3 of foreign experience)
Check
3. Visit troops in Germany and Kuwait
Check
4. Qualify for VP slot
Simply amazing!!!!!
Update: New campaign poster
44 Responses to “Governor Sarah Palin Foreign Experience?”
By Alex on Aug 31, 2008 | Reply
Well, she lives in Alaska, which is close to Russia, which is close to North Korea, which is close to China, which is close to India, which is close to Pakistan, which is close to Afghanistan, which is close to Iran, which is close to Georgia and Saudi Arabia, which is close to Syria and Iraq, which is close to Israel and Palestine. The logic is bullet-proof: She has more foreign policy experience than any other Vice-Presidential (or Presidential) candidate in history. Also, Saudi Arabia is close to Sudan, Chad, and Nigeria.
By Steve O on Aug 31, 2008 | Reply
Alex,
I think you inadvertently laid out Hitlers plan for world domination in reverse. ::Evul laugh and pinky to side of mouth::
By manapp99 on Aug 31, 2008 | Reply
Between steps 2 and 3 would be
Run for and get elected as Alaskas first female governor.
That alone trumps anything Obama can come up with.
Besides, lets not forget that she is only going to be veep where the duties include attending funerals and checking up on the health of the president every day. A duty she is clearly over qualified for.
After she gets 8 years of vice pres experience she is going to kick Democrat butt for the 2016 presidential election.
By Steve O on Aug 31, 2008 | Reply
Uh Manapp, running Alaska is not foreign policy experience. Also, she admitted in February that prior to being elected governor she had never been to Juneau, the capital of Alaska. Which gives her less domestic experience, if you subtract her being flat on her back making five kids.
And as far as VP duties, I beg to differ, ask Cheney. Also, the main problem is that your candidate is not the poster boy for health and longevity so if she was to become president on November 6th she better have the fucking experience.
By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 31, 2008 | Reply
And, um, what is Barack Obama’s foreign policy experience again? I seem to have missed those chapters in his book.
By Steve O on Aug 31, 2008 | Reply
Hey Craig,
Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Is that enough experience? OK, hold on;
Obama held assignments on the Senate Committees for Foreign Relations, Environment and Public Works and Veterans’ Affairs through December 2006. In January 2007, he left the Environment and Public Works committee and took additional assignments with Health, Education, Labor and Pensions and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. He also became Chairman of the Senate’s subcommittee on European Affairs. As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Obama has made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa.
By manapp99 on Aug 31, 2008 | Reply
So our veep is equal to your pres candidate in foreign policy experience.
I will stipulate to that.
However her running Alaska clearly beats Obamas executive experience of running a community center.
It also beats Biden’s experience of running….uh nothing.
By manapp99 on Aug 31, 2008 | Reply
Steve O, he started running for president right after he became president so he really doesn’t even have the senate committee experience either.
By manapp99 on Aug 31, 2008 | Reply
Hell SteveO he was only on that committee for two years. That’s about enough time to get your staff together.
You guys really want to run on the experience issue?
Bring it on.
He resigned that committee in Dec 06 and announced for presidency in Jan 07.
By Steve O on Aug 31, 2008 | Reply
He had to have enough prior experience to even become president.
And as for executive experience, Wasilla has a population of 6,715 and Alaska, minus polar bears, take a look at this;
Population, 2006 estimate
St. Louis County – 1,000,510
Missouri 5,842,713
Population of Alaska………… 663,661.
And remember, she was for a bridge to nowhere before she was against it, which she flat out lied about in her acceptance speech.
Also, Cindy McCain just came out in defense of Sarah by stating Russia is right next door to Alaska so Sarah knows what is at stake.
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME???
You guys are way to smart to be defending this choice. Seriously, stop playing devil’s advocate.
By manapp99 on Aug 31, 2008 | Reply
Were too smart to defend Palin for veep and yet you still defend Obama for Pres.
Who’s kidding who?
Where did the change slogan go?
Now the argument is experience?
Palin is from outside the beltway and a governor. Look at history, it favors both scenarios.
You have two inside the beltway senators. Senators have not fared well in history when it comes to presidential elections.
Granted we have an old inside the beltway senator as well, but we have the fresh face advantage.
No since arguing more at this time as the polls in the next few weeks will start to tell us who is right and who is wrong.
One thing that stands out is that McCains choice changed the subject from the convention and it is going to be more difficult to call him McSame now.
By Steve O on Aug 31, 2008 | Reply
Jeez Manapp, I’m glad he chose he to change the subject from a historical moment in our history to a question of experience for a housewife to governor bag of national inexperience.
When are you going to get that it’s not about her inexperience as VP but her inexperience as POTUS. You know McCain is going to croak within the next six months.
By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 31, 2008 | Reply
Uh, yeh. And how many times has he actually been present at any of those committee meetings and what, pray tell, has he done in any of them? He’s spent most of his not quite completed one term in the US Senate campaigning for president, it seems to me. You can’t gain experience from having your name on committees for the meetings of which you are hardly ever present. Looks good on a resume but it’s essentially meaningless.
Me, however, on Palin, I think her a poor choice. I don’t defend her at all. I understand that, politically and ticket-wise, she’s a bold choice, ginning up the conservative base and playing to the soccer moms, pro-lifers and so forth and maybe playing to the Hillary supporters who have said they won’t support Obama but as a v-p choice, I can’t see her at all. She negates one of the Republicans’ arguments against Obama: lack of experience. That and the investigation into what is being called ‘trooper-gate’, which plays right into the Democrats’ charge that Republicans are all scandal ridden and corrupt.
Surely there has to be one Republican out there who would make a credible stand-in president, if McCain should die or become incapacitated, that isn’t under investigation for something. But no.
Jeez. Republicans used to know how to play this game.
By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 31, 2008 | Reply
I guess we’ll see how quick a study Palin is. She is purportedly a pretty smart woman. If she can hold her own in debate with Joe Biden, she should dispel all question of her qualifications for president but if, as I very much suspect, she gets creamed at the debate, it’s going to be hard for me to vote for a 72 year old president whose stand in is clearly under-qualified and I suspect I’m far from alone on that score.
By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 31, 2008 | Reply
On the other hand, Camille Paglia seems quite impressed with Sarah Palin. From her mouth to God’s ear:
“We may be seeing the first woman president. As a Democrat, I am reeling,” said Camille Paglia, the cultural critic. “That was the best political speech I have ever seen delivered by an American woman politician. Palin is as tough as nails.”
So what do I know?
By JD on Aug 31, 2008 | Reply
To calm your fears about being a heartbeat away from the POTUS, Governor Palin can just use Obama’s tactic and appoint a VP with Foreign Affairs experience. Thus again taking the experience factor off the table. Oh by the way she just signed a 40 BILLION dollar business agreement with a foreign country.
2 typical lawyers
vs.
A Senior Citizen and a Hockey Mom.
By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 31, 2008 | Reply
Actually, JD, I don’t think the Constitution will allow her to pick her VP. If McCain dies or becomes incapacitated, Palin moves to the Oval Office and the Speaker of the House, presumably Nancy Pelosi, becomes Vice-President, whatever foreign affairs experience she may have. At least, that’s the way I read the Constitution.
By JD on Aug 31, 2008 | Reply
No, the speaker moves up only on the death of both the Prez and VP.
By JD on Aug 31, 2008 | Reply
The 25th Amendment, ratified in 1967, clarified Article II, Section 1: that the Vice President is the direct successor of the President. He or she becomes President if the President dies, resigns or is removed from office. The 25th also provides for the situation where the President is temporarily disabled, such as if the President has a surgical procedure or becomes mentally unstable. It also required vice presidential vacancies to be filled by the President and confirmed by Congress. Previously, when a vice president had succeeded to the presidency or otherwise left the office empty (through death, resignation, or removal from office), the vice presidency remained vacant.
By Steve O on Aug 31, 2008 | Reply
Actually the 25th amendment calls for the vice president to nominate a person that needs to be confirmed by majority vote in both houses of congress.
That still DOES NOT give me the warm fuzzies because at the end of the day the prez is the shizzle and she could go bat shit crazy.
As seen with Bush, some errors and fuck ups will take generations to fix. This country cannot afford that right now!!!!
So in short you argument sucks JD!!
By Steve O on Aug 31, 2008 | Reply
lol JD, we must have been typing at the same exact time.
I just got the entire US Constitution downloaded to my iphone so I’m armed and ready and on the go
By JD on Aug 31, 2008 | Reply
Great, Steve O checkout the qualifications for POTUS. Because I can’t find the Foreign Policy part. Maybe that’s why there’s a State Department? Lucky for Obama.
By Steve O on Aug 31, 2008 | Reply
Gawd you guys are grasping at straws here. Mind you I have not taken my eye off of McCain but you’re really beginning to was my time with Sarah. Which might very well be the reason for the choice.
Every pres and vp need all the resources they can get their hands on to make decisions but Sarah Palin is no way in a position to understand all the information that would be thrown at her.
SHE HAS A JOURNALISM MAJOR FROM A THIRD RATE COLLEGE!!!!!
How do you think that is qualifications? she has no idea how to write a law……
By JD on Aug 31, 2008 | Reply
It is the trade of lawyers to question everything, yield nothing, and talk by the hour. – Thomas Jefferson
Sounds like he was talking about both Obama and Biden. (I kill myself, lol)
2 typical lawyers
vs.
A Senior Citizen and a Hockey Mom.
By Cranky Liberal on Aug 31, 2008 | Reply
Running a state the size of the city of Jacksonville Florida …yeah OK that compares with being a US Senator, traveling the world, meeting foreign leaders, sitting on committees. Yep lets see I was president of a high school class thats the size of some of the towns – maybe I could be a governor there.
Heres the thing – Obama has been on the National Stage since 2004. He was in the State legislature for a while (a state that dwarfs Alaska) then the US Senate. He has campaigned for 18 months and we have gotten to know him warts and all. Enough democrats (and at this point enough Americans) think he is qualified to President because we have vetted him. Palin has been thurst into our midsts. Until Friday 99.999 percent of the people had no clue who she was. Now we are to trust her to Vice President? And before you talk about how VP’s dont do anything, I show you exhibit A – Dick Cheney. Thats why we need a VP who ight help the country instead of continuing its decline
By Dusty on Aug 31, 2008 | Reply
So our veep is equal to your pres candidate in foreign policy experience.
Jesus H.Christ..we really don’t care if you buy anything we say here manapp. When are you going to realize that?
She ran a small burgh as Mayor and then sold that to the folks in Alaska…they love Teddy fucking Stevens for crying out loud!
She likes to toss her weight around by firing people she doesn’t like or that don’t agree with her…you like that about her?
There are Repub’s that think this is a fuckwitted move by McSame. you all here can whine all you want…wait till the numbers come out…and besides you already have the RightWing Nut vote sewed up..,and thats who she appeals to.
Suck it up and deal…lets see what happens ok?
By Laura on Aug 31, 2008 | Reply
So, being a governor of a state with about half the population of the city I live in and being near Russia qualifies you to be VP. Hell, then the mayor of my city has just as much qualifications. After all Orlando has roughly 1,200,000 citizens AND it is near Cuba.
You all do realize that in one of her reasons for accepting the VP position nod is that it should be a fruitful position for Alaska. She’s not planning on being VP for the country, just for Alaska.
By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 31, 2008 | Reply
Two things: one, I was wrong on the Constitutional matter. Two, I’m one of the Republicans who thinks Palin was a poor choice for v-p so I am not to be confused with the “you all here” who are “whin[ing]” or the “you guys” who are “grasping at straws”. Just for the record.
And I’m perfectly happy to suck it up and see what happens.
Three! Three things!
By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 31, 2008 | Reply
One more thing. In my opinion, McCain did not, and I say decidedly not, have the right wing vote sewn up. Not by a long shot. Palin has, if the indications I’ve seen so far mean anything, very much sewn up the right wing vote. Not only sewn them up but fired them up not just to vote but to give and to campaign with vigor. On that count, unless she screws up royally, Palin has worked wonders.
Four! Four things!
By Steve O on Aug 31, 2008 | Reply
Craig, I didn’t hear a word you said, did you say you were for Palin?
Blah, Blah, Blah…
For the record, I’m not whining just merely pointing out that this twit of a VP selection is just that.
We all know that it is possible for McCain to win and if so he will usher in 4 more years of Bush and strengthen the radical right, the American Taliban, the fuckers that would probably have no problem shooting me for being a non-believer.
We need balance and we need it now. If the country had swung this far to the left I would have voted to bring it back. Simple. No shit. Really.
By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 1, 2008 | Reply
Steve O,
By Matthew O'Keefe on Sep 1, 2008 | Reply
I would put the confidence of all the American people behind an Obama and Biden administration over the McCain and Palin team any single day. Vote your damn wallet and who is going to screw you over less. Obama has tax cuts, isn’t that conservative of him, Biden has decades of foreign relations experience, Obama brings hope, McCain brings nothing but I’m Bush 2.0! In the this last thought, it would be nice to believe in your government once more.
Governor Palin was caught in a bold faced lie with her acceptance speech and her refrerence to bridge to nowhere. If you want facts on it then just see the post from me to come…
Change does not mean you elect a new set of liars to replace the ones you had. Stop lying to yourself simply because you have an R after your name. What is wrong with telling the damn truth?
Rock on SteveO and Bring It On!
By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 1, 2008 | Reply
And I wouldn’t put the confidence of the American people behind an Obama whose reaction to an ad that raises questions about his connections to an unrepentent bomber whom Obama wished to pass off as respectable was to try to get the US Attorney General to prosecute the people that produced the ad. Not, mind you, to sue the people that produced it for slander or libel, as if there were one word that was not true in the ad, but to prosecute them and send them to prison.
And that’s not the first people he’s sought prosecutions for people having the “audacity” to say things about him that he doesn’t like.
If this is your idea of change you can believe in, by all means, vote for the fascist and just wait and see what he does to his political opponents when he has an AG that he’s appointed specially for willingness to prosecute his political opponents rather than have to depend upon the actions of an AG appointed by the current Republican president.
You think Bush destroyed the Constitution, wait until Obama brings old time Chicago Democratic machine politics national. Of course, maybe you’ll like that, being as how you’ll be on his side.
On the other hand, I’m hoping you all like the first amendment more than you like Obama or hate McCain.
By steve on Sep 1, 2008 | Reply
All the dems are gripping and they haven’t heard a fucking word from this lady yet. We have heard it all since January 2007 when Mr Yes We Can decided to start campaigning for Prez. Obama peaked… Bush and Cheney are out making a show for Nawlins’ and McCain/Palin are gonna look like leaders this week talking and assisting Bush with the effort. Face it, God is on our side with a perfect storm….
By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 1, 2008 | Reply
On the Bridge to Nowhere, it is true that Palin ran for Governor on an “I feel your pain”, “build the bridge” ticket and only later changed her mind and, after the earmark language had been removed from the bill that had contained the bridge ear-mark money, thus freeing the money for use for other transportation related projects, did Palin redirect the money to other projects.
In a sense, she DID say “no thanks” to the earmarking and to the bridge she’d promised while campaigning however, it seems misleading to give the impression that she (Palin) said “thanks but no thanks” for the money for the bridge and that “if we want a bridge, we’ll pay for it ourselves” when her “thanks” amounted to a gubernatorial race ran on a promised bridge and her “no thanks” came only after having been elected on those promises to build the bridge.
Also, it wasn’t like she said “no thanks” to the federal money. She took the money. She just used it for other stuff. That, then, also sounds rather disingenuous. She made herself out as an opponent of taking federal money (”if we need a bridge, we’ll build it ourselves”). In fact, she only opposed the earmarking of the federal money. She was happy to take the money as long as she could exercise discretion on how that money was spent. A fine distinction but one without much difference, if you ask me.
No, I’m not one to defend Palin.
By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 1, 2008 | Reply
Oops, the link for the preceding comment doesn’t seem to have appeared. Here it is.
By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 1, 2008 | Reply
Of course, the defense will likely be, “Yeh, she flip-flopped on the issue; it’s called changing her mind, seeing the light, learning wisdom”. The same nuance any politician uses when they say one thing while running and then do the opposite when in office. Just, please, don’t give us “It’s a woman’s prerogative to change her mind.” I don’t think my stomach could keep my food down.
By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 1, 2008 | Reply
Well, Good night, all! Bed time.
By Steve O on Sep 1, 2008 | Reply
Craig,
During the 2004 presidential campaign, Simmons made a $4 million donation to the controversial group Swift Vets and POWs for Truth. He also donated $100,000 to George W. Bush’s January 2005 inaugural ball. He’s also a backer of a controversial plan to store nuclear waste in West Texas, which his waste management company would administer (Hmmm and Bush would be able to help him out with that).
I wonder if the Republicans have a slide rule out there that tells you how much you need to bribe, kinda like the tools out there for math challenged people that tells you how much of a tip to leave after dinner?
Here is the ad in question for anyone that hasn’t seen it.
And here is the extent of the case, I am pasting it here for all you lazy people that cannot click through links. It lays out the case at hand.
It is far from a fascist move as Craig stands to claim, first off if it was a fascist move hwy is it being argued in court?
Obama attorney Bob Bauer sent this letter to the Department of Justice claiming that AIP is engaged in illegal activities. Bob’s letter makes two main claims:
1. The group is engaged in political activities that a 501(c)(4) organization may not engage in.
2. The group, by engaging in express advocacy against Sen. Obama and engaging in no other activities, is a political committee. But it has not registered as a political committee and has not followed the rules applicable to political committees.
Story continues below
advertisement
I won’t address the first issue, leaving that to the tax/non-profit lawyers. So the rest of this post addresses the second issue. Is AIP really a political committee in disguise? One of the most important limits on political committee activity is that the groups cannot accept contributions over $5,000 from any individual, making Simmons’ $2.9 million contribution illegal. (There’s an argument that individual contributions to political committees that make only independent expenditures are constitutionally protected and cannot be limited. Bob has expressed sympathy with this argument in the past in his own (not campaign) capacity, the the Supreme Court has not considered the question yet.)
Cleta Mitchell, AIP’s lawyer, has sent this response to the Justice Department. Mitchell does not disagree that AIP’s anti-Obama ad is express advocacy, and that disclosure of spending on such ads is required. However, she argues that AIP does not have to register as a political committee, because the group qualifies as a special kind of non-profit ideological corporation that can make unlimited independent expenditures supporting or opposing candidates for office and take unlimited contributions to fund them. These types of groups are known as either “MCFL” corporations, because the Supreme Court created this exemption in a case called FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life. The FEC calls such groups “qualified non-profit corporations” (or QNCs), and it has issued a regulation defining who gets QNC status.
Mitchell argues that its group qualifies for QNC status because it is a non-profit corporation engaged in political activities that does not take corporate or union money and is organized as a 501(c)(4). It says its activities are no different from those of NARAL Pro-Choice America (which I believe is also a client of Bob Bauer’s).
Assuming the facts are as Mitchell represents they are, it looks like AIP meets the requirements to be a QNC. However, Mitchell leaves out a significant part of the MCFL analysis. As the FEC’s own discussion of MCFL (linked by Mitchell) notes, “Furthermore, the Court pointed out that ’should MCFL’s independent spending become so extensive that the organization’s major purpose may be regarded as campaign activity, the corporation would be classified as a political committee,’ subject to the restrictions and extensive reporting requirements the law applies to such entities.”
So the answer to the question depends upon whether AIP, like the actual MCFL organization and the NARAL Pro-Choice America, actually engages in other activities besides independent spending in federal elections. Bob’s letter claims that the group does not appear to have engaged in any other activities. The Mitchell letter claims in contrast that “the majority of AIP’s annual expenditures are not political expenditures but are devoted to grassroots lobbying and education on issues, public policies and other communications, activities and programs appropriate to a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization in accordance with all applicable provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.”
Whether the group really is going to spend more on such activities than the significant anti-Obama ad buy remains to be seen. It is interesting that AP quotes the group’s spokesman as saying “the group has set aside money to carry out non-election related work to meet the legal requirement.” In other words, the other activities are being set up to avoid being classified as a political committee.
It would not surprise me that, following the election and an investigation (if we are lucky by late 2009), we will learn that AIP really should have been called a political committee and the contributions found to be illegal. The group, and perhaps Simmons, could face fines, but by then the election would be over.
One lesson to learn: a few years ago, the FEC resisted crafting regulations for determining when 527s should be considered political committees, preferring instead to rely on case-by-case adjudications. This situation explains why clear-cut written rules are preferable in dealing with this knotty problem (at least until the Supreme Court moots it if and when it declares limits on contributions to independent expenditure committees to be constitutional; at that point we can expect lots of billionaires to pony up money as Mr. Simmons has).
By JD on Sep 1, 2008 | Reply
Everyone give Obama a break, he was for Bill Ayers before he was against Mr. Ayers. While he and Bill were “organizing” the community, Mrs. Palin had already served 5 years in elected office. And Obama and Mr. Ayers served their community well by delivering $100 million dollars to community organizations, including ACORN which is being investigated for padding the registration rolls, again.
By Steve O on Sep 1, 2008 | Reply
JD, how would you like it if I went to your site and sprinkled each post with comments that had nothing to do with the post? Or interrupted you speaking about a topic with something off topic?
I know it’s typical of the GOP attack dogs to try and switch subjects to deflect attention to the real issue so you can stop now. If you don’t have a comment to support or not support Sarah Palin’s experience maybe you should ait until a story about Bill Ayers is posted.
Thank you.
By steve on Sep 1, 2008 | Reply
JD… Don’t forget the part where Clinton spooged on the blue dress before lying under oath…
By Lisa on Sep 1, 2008 | Reply
I was wondering why no one is referring to
her as Governor Stalin but then I realized she not a leftist.
By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 1, 2008 | Reply
Steve O,
As far as I’m concerned, your first paragraph is irrelevant to the issue at hand. I am aware of his past activities. My concern is with Obama’s activities in seeking to prosecute someone who put out an ad an inocuous as the ad that you linked to.
If the ad was false, fine. Sue them and show, in court, where anything in the ad is false. Otherwise, if there’s nothing false in the ad, and I don’t see anything that’s false in the ad, the solution is to counter the ad with speech of one’s own, showing that his connection to Ayers is irrelevant to his presidential campaign, not to seek prosecution of one’s political opponents. Read the first amendment. Please to point out to me where the founders had any intention of allowing public servants prosecuting Americans for publishing political opinions about their public servants. I’ll wait.
As for how it can be fascist to go to court, all I can say is, huh? What’s your point? You don’t think fascists used the courts to silence their political opponents? You’re kidding, right?
Look, I don’t just blame Obama for his fascist tendencies to punish opponents through law and prosecution. After all, the law upon which Obama largely depends was co-sponsored by John McCain. In any case, I’ve said my piece. I wouldn’t vote for Obama. If you think prosecuting American people for expressing true speech about candidates running for president, please, by all means, Obama is your man. Vote for him. Just don’t be surprised when Republicans are being put in prison for no other offense than offending Obama’s sensitive ego with truthful political speech but if that’s the case, one might as well be honest and just say that the first amendment no longer exists and government may prosecute Americans for telling the truth.
Change you may believe in but not I.