madskillz said:
akuma587 said:
Steven will be entering law school soon and I am in law school now. What was the question? Whether or not Sarah Palin is incompetent? That is a resounding yes.
And whether or not these stories are bogus is a most definite no. Much of what I have read has shown a fairly consistent message, that Palin quickly became a liability to the McCain campaign after they picked her because of not necessarily her lack of political experience, but her lack of general political knowledge. Once that Katie Couric interview came out, which was a softball interview, I have read from many sources that the McCain campaign put Palin in lockdown so that she couldn't even be in front of a camera unless they wanted her to be there.
There was evidence of infighting with in the McCain campaign weeks ago (CNN had a frontpage article on it about 3-4 weeks ago), and even days after they picked her they were finding out all kinds of things they didn't know since the vetting process was abbreviated. McCain definitely picked her without having a lot of time to carefully consider the choice since his numbers in the polls were drooping. I really don't think anyone can argue that she was his first choice.
And its not like the information is just spontaneously arising from the boogeyman that is the liberal media. The stories have come from all over, and all touch on a few resounding themes, that McCain took a risk in picking Palin and that she turned out to be way more unqualified than he expected. Its really not surprising that this extra dirt is spilling out after the campaign (as it always does since people within the campaign try to keep a lid on it so that it doesn't affect the election), and like I said all of these recent stories seem to be originating from the campaign itself.
Not to mention the fact that there is a dearth of evidence out there that Palin IS politically knowledgeable, so people trying to claim these stories are bogus really don't have much evidence to work with to claim that they AREN'T bogus.
|
This. You have seen the report and presented a deep and well-thought out argument. I really just laugh when folks defend her in spite of this. Folks can blast Biden but no one has accused him of being:
Sympathetic to a group that encourages secession from the Union
Married to a person who has strong ties to a group that wants to secede from the Union
Multiple sources that she went hogwild on expensive shopping sprees
Was asked basic questions in interviews and was completely clueless - on camera
Has no clue on major events, party policies and doctrines and sticks to GOP talking points like glue
Had the VP debate gimped to allow her to compete
Has proven time and time again she is a diva, not a leader
I could go on and on, but I'd be wasting my time.
|
Let's - for a moment - just go with things she actually said and form a logical statement...
She can differentiate between a person who bombs a government building and someone who bombs a medical building but the way she expressed it proved that she doesn't know what the word terrorist means.
She can not differentiate between a terrorist and someone who worked with a person who also happens to be a washed up, old terrorist.
Before she ever heard of Khalidi, she was saying TerroristS - S, Plural.
She calls Rashid Khalidi, an American Citizen, a terrorist. Not only is this person not a terrorist, but he is a friend to both Palestinian and Jewish groups. She single-handedly made sure every old Jew (I can say it, I'm Jewish) who was afraid of Obama's middle name voted for Obama.
