Thank you for letting me decide
Advertisement
Text size: small | medium | large
Edward Fairbairn
Published: October 29, 2008
I appreciated your non-endorsement of either candidate. It is nice that you will let us decide on the facts. However, in your non-endorsement, I suggest you examine the accuracy of some of your facts.
In regards to Gov. Sarah Palin, you comment that she is inexperienced and does not appear to be knowledgeable or curious, and that she has been shielded from the media. I agree that the McCain
Campaign made a big mistake in her roll-out with the media and she initially botched a couple of hostile interviews by the liberal networks.
However, in the past three weeks, she has been more accessible to the media than any of the other three candidates. If you would have bothered to listen to those more recent interviews and some of her
policy speeches, she is remarkably knowledgeable and curious.
Examples include a recent CNN interview and her policy speech on special needs children on Oct. 24. As a special needs parent, I was quite impressed by her in-depth knowledge of that issue.
With respect to her experience, she has more government executive experience than the other three candidates combined. It is quite impressive if you look at the fact that she challenged her own party in
Alaska, took principled stands and defeated an incumbent governor from her own party. Her dealings with the oil companies, taking the peoples’ best interest, have been remarkable and pale in
comparison to anything done by the top of the other ticket.
With respect to Sen. Barack Obama, you assert that he surrounds himself with people who can fill in the gaps of knowledge and experience he lacks. In remarking about the people he surrounds himself
with, you completely ignore his only record, before his ascendancy after the 2004 Democratic Convention. During that time he surrounded himself with mostly radicals, harboring the most extreme left-
wing beliefs around. Unfortunately, these associations are minimized or ignored by the media, and when brought out by alternative media or by the opposing candidate, the false or misleading
explanations given by Obama are accepted as fact with no challenge or follow-up.
Again, thank you for letting me decide, but please get your facts correct.
EDWARD FAIRBAIRN
Woodbridge
Post a Comment
The commenting period has ended or commenting has been deactivated for this article.
Can't find what you're looking for? Try our quick search:
Reader Reactions
Posted by ( Godsaveus ) on October 30, 2008 at 2:17 pm
<As mayor of Wasilla, Palin was frequently required to sign paychecks and attend meetings once a week and make decisions for the town of Wassilla.>
Is she the Governor of Alaska?
However, Biden has the “experience” that Obama needs, but don’t let him open his mouth, watch out with the gaffes.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( pwanon ) on October 30, 2008 at 12:47 pm
“I voted for the smartest guy on the ballot. I’ll take my chances.“
And Hamas, Iran, Venzuela, North Korea, and Karl Marx thank you for it.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( jVA ) on October 30, 2008 at 12:44 pm
“However, Palin has more executive experience than Obama just compare. “
This is so true, Godsaveus. As mayor of Wasilla, Palin was frequently required to sign paychecks and attend meetings once a week and make decisions for the town of Wassilla. Good old executive experience!
As a small business owner and former soldier, I bet have more “executive experience” than McCain and Palin combined. We’re supposed to believe this is somehow the most important qualification for President?
George W. Bush had what 8 years of executive experience as Governor of Texas. Alot of good that did us.
I voted for the smartest guy on the ballot. I’ll take my chances.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( pwanon ) on October 30, 2008 at 12:01 pm
“Both have strong family lives and no record of scandals in their past.“
I think this was probably the funniest part of that entire, pathetic pile of nonsense.
Let’s reduce it to a bit more simplicity.
On one hand we have a candidate who wants to destroy the Constitution, wreck capitalism in favor of an oft proven failed form of class warfare, chose to ally himself with domestic terrorists and racists (and then lied about those associations), has avoided taking a stand for his entire (short, undistinguished) career, and repeats a mantra of “change” without ever having reformed anything meaningful EVER.
Oh…and has a running mate who doesn’t know which Article of the Consitution talks about the VP, or even what that article says. This same running mate has also repeatedly said that his potential boss isn’t fit to be the President, and guarantees that his potential boss’s election would invite “an international crisis”.
And on the other…we have a decorated war hero, with a proven track record of bipartisanship, that commands respect from members of both parties, including the VP nominee running against him. Even lawyers who’ve investigate allegations into him say he’s an honest man, and he is unafraid to take on his party, even to his own political detriment.
Oh…and he wants to actually defend the Consitution, rather than dismantle significant chuncks of it. Kind of an important quality for a President to have.
He has a VP nominee who has more experience than even the Presidential nominee of the other party, a history of actual “change” in reforming corrupt government, and a frankness and honesty that is totally foreign to Democrats.
You’re right. It is really quite simple.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( RonCharest ) on October 30, 2008 at 11:20 am
Let’s see now…
In one corner we have a candidate who grew up in a working class family, raised by his mom until she dies young then raised by his grandmother. He worked his way into Harvard law school and graduated top in his class. Given the choices of working at just about any law firm in the country, he chose one that focused on lower-paying public service and community organizing. He went on to win elections in the state government, then Senate, and beat the great Clinton Machine which one year ago was considered “unstoppable.“ He is widely respected in the senate even with just a few years tenure.
His running mate is one of the most respected and senior members of the Senate who has build his career on taking care of low and middle-income families. He also grew up in a middle-income household and worked his way through college.
Both have strong family lives and no record of scandals in their past.
In the other corner, we have a man who is the latest generation of Admirals and privilege, which was given a slot at the Naval Academy by virtue of his name. He graduated nearly last in his class, went on to wreck five aircraft before being shot down and captured in Vietnam. After five years as POW he came home, runs around having affairs on the wife and mother of his children who waited for him while a POW, then he dumps her for a rich heiress who gives him the money to buy his way into Congress. He is widely disliked in the Senate, and even members of his own party consider him to be unstable and having a vicious temper that makes him unsuitable for president.
His running mate won a beauty pageant, then bounced around through six second-tier schools before earning a degree in journalism. She started working on the local school PTA Board elected mayor of a small town, then later governor of the state. She has a track record of turning on the people who helped her gain political positions to the point where some fellow republicans call her a “Black Widow Spider,“ and “nutcase.“
Both have serious scandals in their past which continue on to this day.
One team is running on hope, on the spirit that we can do better, and offering solid ideas to make our country better. The other team is running on racism, fear of the opposing party’s candidates and ridicule of the opposing team’s ideas without offering any of their own.
So; Which team should we pick for President/Vice President? Let me think a moment…
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( RonCharest ) on October 30, 2008 at 11:18 am
Let’s see now…
In one corner we have a candidate who grew up in a working class family, raised by his mom until she dies young then raised by his grandmother. He worked his way into Harvard law school and graduated top in his class. Given the choices of working at just about any law firm in the country, he chose one that focused on lower-paying public service and community organizing. He went on to win elections in the state government, then Senate, and beat the great Clinton Machine which one year ago was considered “unstoppable.“ He is widely respected in the senate even with just a few years tenure.
His running mate is one of the most respected and senior members of the Senate who has build his career on taking care of low and middle-income families. He also grew up in a middle-income household and worked his way through college.
Both have strong family lives and no record of scandals in their past.
In the other corner, we have a man who is the latest generation of Admirals and privilege, which was given a slot at the Naval Academy by virtue of his name. He graduated nearly last in his class, went on to wreck five aircraft before being shot down and captured in Vietnam. After five years as POW he came home, runs around having affairs on the wife and mother of his children who waited for him while a POW, then he dumps her for a rich heiress who gives him the money to buy his way into Congress. He is widely disliked in the Senate, and even members of his own party consider him to be unstable and having a vicious temper that makes him unsuitable for president.
His running mate won a beauty pageant, then bounced around through six second-tier schools before earning a degree in journalism. She started working on the local school PTA Board elected mayor of a small town, then later governor of the state. She has a track record of turning on the people who helped her gain political positions to the point where some fellow republicans call her a “Black Widow Spider,“ and “nutcase.“
Both have serious scandals in their past which continue on to this day.
One team is running on hope, on the spirit that we can do better, and offering solid ideas to make our country better. The other team is running on racism, fear of the opposing party’s candidates and ridicule of the opposing team’s ideas without offering any of their own.
So; Which team should we pick for President/Vice President? Let me think a moment…
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( Godsaveus ) on October 30, 2008 at 8:33 am
It continues to fascinate me how people can look at Barack Obama seriously. Look, he is a joke, and his partner every time he open his mouth puts Obama in a difficult situation. I have to recognize he is a good teleprompt reader and a good actor. However, Palin has more executive experience than Obama just compare: Obama was “community organizer” , Obama is Obama’s Presidential Campaign Executive Director. Palin was Mayor of the Town of Wasilla , is Governor of the State Of Alaska. With Palin you are going to get what you see thousand of people went to Alaska to dig on mud to find something to throw on he, now there is nothings more to find, by the other hand no body knows who the real Obama the only thing we know is that he will bring “change”.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( pwanon ) on October 30, 2008 at 8:14 am
“strategic”
Meant “existing” reserves. His words, not mine.
And by the way…has anyone figured out why Joe Biden said, unequivocally, that BHO wasn’t ready to be President several months ago?
Or why he’s preaching the politics of fear by guaranteeing that a BHO Presidency would invite “an international crisis” within six months.
Wow. What a ringing endorsement from his own running mate.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( pwanon ) on October 30, 2008 at 8:02 am
Hmm…at first, everyone under $250,000 was getting a tax cut.
Now…everyone under $200,000 is supposedly getting one.
The definition of “the rich” apparently changed within the last week.
“We can’t drill our way out of this problem” says BHO.
But apparently, now we’re going to tap into the strategic reserve.
Outflanked on the issues that matter, BHO is backtracking, waffling, and can’t be trusted to stick to anything he says.
Quite “presidential”, huh?
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( pwanon ) on October 30, 2008 at 7:50 am
“It continues to fascinate me how people can look at the Sarah Palin and think “presidential”. Is it just obstinate party loyalty?“
Funny. That’s exactly how I feel about BHO.
Considering he has chosen to align himself politically and financially with domestic terrorists, racists, and people who advocate the destruction of Israel, it’s hard to believe anyone thinks he’s “presidential”
Considering he wants to implement an economic plan that’s failed about a million times throughout history…and is the complete antithesis of the founding prinicples of this country…it’s hard to believe anyone sees him as “presidential.“
Considering he’s demonstrated, time and again, that he doesn’t have the courage to stand up to any kind of criticism…as evidenced by his lack of a press conference in more than a month, or his astounding number of “present” votes…it’s ridiculous to see him as “presidential.“
And when he lies…repeatedly…about Bill Ayers, about public funding, about taxes, about…well…nearly everything that comes out his mouth…it’s now downright dangerous to us as nation that anyone thinks he’s “presidential.“
Report Inappropriate Comment