> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Michael Madigan > Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 2:39 PM > To: ProFox Email List > Subject: RE: [OT] Any comments on Sarah Palin? > > Bob, > > How can we criticize Obama's inexperience now?
Mike: Are you kidding me? Look at what Palin has DONE in her short time as governor and, before that, mayor (both executive roles by the way, of which Obama has ZERO on his resume, aside from ZERO foreign policy experience). * Major tax reform * Major ethics reform, has fired losers on the government payroll * Major achievements cutting back on wasteful spending - rejecting funding for the infamous "bridge to nowhere" - selling the governor's spiffy new jet on eBay (I love that one!) * Enormously popular (80% approval rating) despite beating incumbents in her own party Her *executive* resume looks like a phone book compared to Obama's. We can also criticize his inexperience because he's at the TOP of their ticket. At the top of ours is someone who can knock Obama's empty pant suits off experience-wise. Look at who she is. A real woman, with a real record of conservative reform. She gets what America is really all about, and won't moan on endlessly about how much America sucks and needs to change. She's also really an outsider, whereas Obama's pick is the ultimate Washington insider. They don't want to change Washington but they do want to change America. It think it puts an interesting twist on the change theme -- what exactly do we want to change? America itself? Or just its government? If the latter, then McCain/Palin make sense. But if you dislike America as it is and you want to use single-party government in DC to change *it*... then maybe Obama/Biden make more sense. This is the underlying contradiction in Obama's new positive "change" message: If the country is so damn good, why can't you wait to change it!? > I would have rather he > taken Kay Bailey Hutchinson or another woman with a long record. Kay would have been a great pick too. She is so-so on pro-life issues, opposing overturning Roe but opposing late term abortion too. But I would have been happy with her as well. The long record may have been seen as a negative. The Dems will be scrambling to find bad things about Palin, so in a way it throws them off guard. Kay would have had more they could have gone after right away. I don't know why he didn't pick her, but Palin works fine for me for the aforementioned reasons. I think she's a game changer that makes Mr. Inevitable look like Mr. Petty, and that will be fun to watch. I could be wrong but it's ten times better than a Lieberman pick---surely, that would have been a disaster. With Palin, McCain can be maverick and have his base, too. - Bob _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
