| Sqrl said: McCain's point was never to pass sanctions but to make Russia veto them so they look bad, while Obama's point was to actually pass them..which cannot be done. For someone who is so articulate and well thought out it and gives long explicit answers you would expect him to explain that extra aspect but he didn't and McCain did, and yet we are once against asked to give him the benefit of the doubt on his own words. In regards to the CAC, yes, I think he failed there, and I have no idea if palin would have been more successful , there is no way to know. But I don't think she would have given the money to programs that require students and parents to become politically active to recieve the aid and I don't think she would have turned down groups that wanted to emphasize and re-focus the schools on math and science education. But thats exactly what happened while Obama controlled the money, and the results speak for themselves. And yes her negotiations with Canada and the Oil companies are a great example of her leadership in action and it happens to be on a multi-national multi-billion dollar project. The scale and scope of the project was enormous and she did a great job with it by all accounts. While Obama's smaller scale smaller scope project faired very poorly. We can speculate about who would have done better if the roles were reversed but they weren't reversed and this is what we have, this is reality. So you don't want to cite a specific accusation you were referring to, you just want to keep it general where I can't respond to it?
|
OK, aide's refusal to testify to the Alaskan legislature for troopergate, go. Edit: the scandal itself might be innocent, but why exactly is everybody refusing to testify when she came saying she supported the investigation.
