Great post by Kevin McCullough shredding the “inexperience” argument, if you can call it that, from liberals.
Only a fool would question Sarah Palin’s experience as a basis for her readiness to be Vice-President, especially as compared to Barack Obama’s experience as a basis for his readiness to be President.
Never has such a scurrilous set of accusations been less founded. Those who argue them, such as the Obama campaign, because they know the truth to be irrefutable end up rendering themselves silly. The truth is that Sarah Palin is more qualified to be President than Biden or Obama. But let’s examine the facts for what they tell us.
What kind of Chief Executive experience does Barack Obama have? Not counting his not-for-profit work alongside convicted terrorist William Ayers – none! Yes it is true that when working with the Annenberg Challenge in Chicago that he and Ayers were co-heads of the project. So that’s the full extent of his executive experience. A few paltry months, in the non-profit world, working with the convicted terrorist he once claimed he barely even knew. (Darn those University of Chicago papers…)
So what about Palin? Well… She has administrated a household, the PTA, the City Council, and got so good at it others encouraged her to run a city, and then a state. That’s more executive experience than Obama, Hillary, and Biden combined. In doing so she had to deal with issues that dealt with the security, welfare, and economic impact of those under her administration. She’s commanded the Alaskan National Guard. She has had to deal with international issues relating to the stewardship of territory with two nations that bordered her state – Canada and Russia. She had to tell Congress “thanks but not thanks” on federal monies that she felt would hurt the average American tax-payer even though it could have meant long term revenue for her state (bridge to nowhere.) She bopped the oil companies on the nose. And when she felt they were soaking the American gasoline consumer – and her oil rich state reaped the windfall – she returned those monies to the people of Alaska in the form of an individual tax-refund of $1200 per person this summer. She hammered her fellow state republicans when they behaved poorly (i.e. U.S. Senator Ted Stevens). And she could only have done any of it – because of her willingness to take on the corrupt old school, good-old-boy partisans in her state that worked against her.
What did Obama do that came close to any of this? The Chicago Democratic machine is as crooked a group as can be found and Obama’s not only never opposed them. He’s spooned with them (ahem, politically speaking.) He’s never had to deal with foreign powers because he’s never had to make a decision that put people who depended upon him in the path of a decision with a foreign power. It was like pulling wisdom teeth on the guy just to get him to go put on a flak jacket and visit the troops, much less think of commanding them. When you consider that Obama has voted to increase taxes more than eighty times, you recognize that he would not have the good sense to return the people’s money to the people who earned. (And he says he’s for the working man…)
It’s been nothing but hot air from Obama up until now anyway. Should we have expected anything different here?