If Palin had been president from 2008 unil now...
Would we be better off?
I emphatically say yes and am more than willing to do defend my position.
What do you think?
I emphatically say yes and am more than willing to do defend my position.
What do you think?
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
I think what we are missing here is a persons ability to adjust as president. All good leaders need to do this. I do not agree with Clinton's politics, but he was a good politician because he was able to adjust and work with the cards that were dealt to him, which was a Republican controlled congress at that time. The same with Reagan. Reagan worked well with Tip O'Neal. Clinton had to move center right, which he did. But he was a governor of Arkansas, which during his time as governor had to work with opposite sides, so when he was president he knew how to work with Republicans.
Obama, on the other hand, had no experience prior to being president like Clinton did. Obama will not adjust and never will, and that is why he has to go. Hillary, I think, would have adjusted as well. She would have been a better president then Obama. If Obama is willing to adjust to the center, because we are a center right country, like Clinton, I think we would have had a lot different outcome. And like I said he could have easily passed Heatlhcare with a better economy. He had his priorities mixed and still does.
Leon brings up a good point. A lot of it would have to deal with leadership. Is the person willing to work with opposite sides? Obama shut the door on republicans the first two years in office, so he didn't work with them. He passed the stimulas and healthcare during this time. When Republicans took power in 2010 in the House, he hasn't been able to work with them on anything. Bill Clinton was able to but Obama can't. Two different leadership styles, two different outcomes.
Obama, on the other hand, had no experience prior to being president like Clinton did. Obama will not adjust and never will, and that is why he has to go. Hillary, I think, would have adjusted as well. She would have been a better president then Obama. If Obama is willing to adjust to the center, because we are a center right country, like Clinton, I think we would have had a lot different outcome. And like I said he could have easily passed Heatlhcare with a better economy. He had his priorities mixed and still does.
Imagine Palin in office with a Democratically controlled Congress. TARP would still have gone through. There would not have been stimulous or healthcare, but she still would have 2 wars on her hands and an economy in shambles. Everything would depend on what the midterm election would have brought, and I am not sure the Tea Party would have formed.
Leon brings up a good point. A lot of it would have to deal with leadership. Is the person willing to work with opposite sides? Obama shut the door on republicans the first two years in office, so he didn't work with them. He passed the stimulas and healthcare during this time. When Republicans took power in 2010 in the House, he hasn't been able to work with them on anything. Bill Clinton was able to but Obama can't. Two different leadership styles, two different outcomes.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Very well stated Tlingit. Also very surprising to hear such positivity to Clinton, a democrat.
What I ask is do you think Palin would have shown the ability to adapt. She honestly seems to much leaning towards the Tea Party side to be able to work with a democratic Congress. In essence, she is to the right as Obama is to the left.
Thoughts?
What I ask is do you think Palin would have shown the ability to adapt. She honestly seems to much leaning towards the Tea Party side to be able to work with a democratic Congress. In essence, she is to the right as Obama is to the left.
Thoughts?
The Tea Party is comprised of Democrats, Republicans, and Indepentants. Their stand is simple: Less Government, fiscal contraint and responsibility, and lower taxes. Who would disagree with this?
On the other hand the mainstream media loves the OWS movement.
How did we as a country get so far off track? Do we no longer know what it means to be self sufficient, or to have fiscal responsibility anymore? These are now considered extreme ideas, where as crapping on police cars, having sex in public, raping, destroying property is considered to be an ideal movement that we should embrace as a country? Our moral compass as a country is no longer working if we embrace this to be the case.
Sarah Palin would have to work well with others to get things done in Washington. I think she would have brought an outsider approach to tackle the problems plaguing Washington, which could be good and bad. One is she wouldn't follow the Washington rules. Two, would she run into trouble by not following the rules? Probably. Therefore she would be bucking heads like Bill Clinton for a while after the Republicans took office. Would she have adjusted? Probably. I think this question would remain unanswered. I think her success or failure would have to depend on who she surrounded herself with as far as top advisors.
We need less government. Why do we need a government that controls every aspect of our lives? The reason for the Revolutionary War was to break free from England, who was ruled by King George. And now everything America stood for is heading down a path to serfdom to an all powerful government.
It makes sense to have a budget, I have a budget, why shouldn't the government have a budget.
Lower taxes. Why should I pay more in taxes if the government is going to waste my hard earned money? If the government didn't waste the taxpayer money like on Solyndra, GSA, and Healthcare (50 new taxes next year), then people would be more likely pay more.
The mainstream media paints the Tea Party as extreme, with extreme ideas. Is it really extreme believe what I just outlined above?On the other hand the mainstream media loves the OWS movement.
How did we as a country get so far off track? Do we no longer know what it means to be self sufficient, or to have fiscal responsibility anymore? These are now considered extreme ideas, where as crapping on police cars, having sex in public, raping, destroying property is considered to be an ideal movement that we should embrace as a country? Our moral compass as a country is no longer working if we embrace this to be the case.
Sarah Palin would have to work well with others to get things done in Washington. I think she would have brought an outsider approach to tackle the problems plaguing Washington, which could be good and bad. One is she wouldn't follow the Washington rules. Two, would she run into trouble by not following the rules? Probably. Therefore she would be bucking heads like Bill Clinton for a while after the Republicans took office. Would she have adjusted? Probably. I think this question would remain unanswered. I think her success or failure would have to depend on who she surrounded herself with as far as top advisors.
>>The Tea Party is comprised of Democrats, Republicans, and Indepentants.
I think that is a bit of a stretch, don't you? The Tea Party is heavily dominated by Republicans.
>>Why should I pay more in taxes if the government is going to waste my hard earned money? If the government didn't waste the taxpayer money like on Solyndra, GSA, and Healthcare (50 new taxes next year), then people would be more likely pay more.
I believe this actually is in contradiction of the Tea Party principles. Less taxes isn't because the government is wasting the money. Tea Party principles are less taxes is because people should keep more of what they earn.
>>These are now considered extreme ideas, where as crapping on police cars, having sex in public, raping, destroying property is considered to be an ideal movement that we should embrace as a country?
I'm sorry, I missed the mass amount of media coverage that specifically said these were ideal things to be doing during a movement?
>>Sarah Palin would have to work well with others to get things done in Washington. I think she would have brought an outsider approach to tackle the problems plaguing Washington, which could be good and bad. One is she wouldn't follow the Washington rules. Two, would she run into trouble by not following the rules? Probably. Therefore she would be bucking heads like Bill Clinton for a while after the Republicans took office. Would she have adjusted? Probably. I think this question would remain unanswered. I think her success or failure would have to depend on who she surrounded herself with as far as top advisers.
That is EXACTLY what Barack Obama sold in 2008. New blood and new ideas and not working with the old Washington rules. Reaching across the aisle. Everything he promised is what you feel should be done by someone to be a good leader. Now many believed he would do these things and he got elected. Do you have any history of Palin that shows she would have stuck to these ideals or would it just have to be her word as a politician?
I think that is a bit of a stretch, don't you? The Tea Party is heavily dominated by Republicans.
>>Why should I pay more in taxes if the government is going to waste my hard earned money? If the government didn't waste the taxpayer money like on Solyndra, GSA, and Healthcare (50 new taxes next year), then people would be more likely pay more.
I believe this actually is in contradiction of the Tea Party principles. Less taxes isn't because the government is wasting the money. Tea Party principles are less taxes is because people should keep more of what they earn.
>>These are now considered extreme ideas, where as crapping on police cars, having sex in public, raping, destroying property is considered to be an ideal movement that we should embrace as a country?
I'm sorry, I missed the mass amount of media coverage that specifically said these were ideal things to be doing during a movement?
>>Sarah Palin would have to work well with others to get things done in Washington. I think she would have brought an outsider approach to tackle the problems plaguing Washington, which could be good and bad. One is she wouldn't follow the Washington rules. Two, would she run into trouble by not following the rules? Probably. Therefore she would be bucking heads like Bill Clinton for a while after the Republicans took office. Would she have adjusted? Probably. I think this question would remain unanswered. I think her success or failure would have to depend on who she surrounded herself with as far as top advisers.
That is EXACTLY what Barack Obama sold in 2008. New blood and new ideas and not working with the old Washington rules. Reaching across the aisle. Everything he promised is what you feel should be done by someone to be a good leader. Now many believed he would do these things and he got elected. Do you have any history of Palin that shows she would have stuck to these ideals or would it just have to be her word as a politician?
What I ask is do you think Palin would have shown the ability to adapt. She honestly seems to much leaning towards the Tea Party side to be able to work with a democratic Congress. In essence, she is to the right as Obama is to the left.
That's the key question, and the answer is .... who the heck knows.
They are diametrically opposed now, but would they have been if she was in office? Obama did not have to work with Republicans the first two years and that solidified both his and the opposing sides. She may have been able to work with the Democrats more since it would have been obvious that she could not do anything without them.
In a way Obama's presidency radicalized both their positions. The reverse may not have happened.
>>The reverse may not have happened.
Or it may. I agree who the heck knows.
Or it may. I agree who the heck knows.
The Tea Party is comprised of Democrats, Republicans, and Indepentants. Their stand is simple: Less Government, fiscal contraint and responsibility, and lower taxes. Who would disagree with this?
I disagree. It is composed of Fiscal Libertarians. Most Democrats and many Republicans disagree with them on many if not all issues.
Most Democrats and many Republicans disagree with them on many if not all issues.
The breakdown of the Tea Party in parties.
57% Republican
28% Independent
13% Democrat
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/90541-survey-four-in-10-tea-party-members-dem-or-indie
The point is the mainstream media paints them as extreme right wing conservatives, so people believe they are racist and really don't understand what they actually stand for. Obviously there will be more Republicans involved in this movement because it aligns with their belief system. But as you can see there are Democrats and Independents in this movement.
>>http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/90541-survey-four-in-10-tea-party-members-dem-or-indie
Sketchy coming from a Republican-leaning firm as it would be helpful to them to show that it is not overrun with Republicans, so there is an agenda.
Apparently they are not very good at math either since 17% of 1000 = 170. How did they get that it is over 500?
That all sounds about right, or maybe skewed to be a bit less.
...according to three national polls by the Winston Group, a Republican-leaning firm that conducted the surveys on behalf of an education advocacy group.
Sketchy coming from a Republican-leaning firm as it would be helpful to them to show that it is not overrun with Republicans, so there is an agenda.
The Winston Group conducted three national telephone surveys of 1,000 registered voters between December and February. Of those polled, 17 percent – more than 500 people -- said they were “part of the Tea Party movement.
Apparently they are not very good at math either since 17% of 1000 = 170. How did they get that it is over 500?
Tea Party members are more likely to be male, slightly older and middle income. Almost half the members of the group reported getting their news about national issues from Fox News, 10 percent of respondents said that talk radio is one of their top two sources, which is seven-points higher than the average voter.
That all sounds about right, or maybe skewed to be a bit less.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
>>It will be interesting in 20 years to look back and see how history judges Obama and Palin.
We can look right now and see how they're judging him.
#1 at the box office
We can look right now and see how they're judging him.
#1 at the box office
"We need less government. Why do we need a government that controls every aspect of our lives?"
Right -:)) A government small enough to fit in your uterus.
ASKER
A guy who was a Republican in 2008 saying that a fellow Republican running for VP had more qualification than the Democrat that is running against them? In what way is this unique at all?
After the election he leaves the Republican party and goes Independent. Now he is speaking at the DNC.
It looks like you are just showcasing someone who lost faith in his Republican party.
After the election he leaves the Republican party and goes Independent. Now he is speaking at the DNC.
It looks like you are just showcasing someone who lost faith in his Republican party.
ASKER
Are you shooting the messenger or the message?
I'm questioning the messenger on the importance/uniqueness/rele
ASKER
If Palin were president...
1. We wouldn't have added $6 trillion in new debt in 3.5 years
2. We wouldn't have 83% of doctors considering leaving the profession.
4. Wouldn't have a health law that adds $340 billion to the deficit
5. Wouldn't have the government owning a car company at the expense of billions to the tax payer
6. We wouldn't have the government pushing subprime loans.
7. We wouldn't have tax dollars going to the RESEARCH OF HARD ONS.
8. The Black Panthers would have been prosecuted
9. Oil supply would be greater
( I can go all day)
1. We wouldn't have added $6 trillion in new debt in 3.5 years
2. We wouldn't have 83% of doctors considering leaving the profession.
4. Wouldn't have a health law that adds $340 billion to the deficit
5. Wouldn't have the government owning a car company at the expense of billions to the tax payer
6. We wouldn't have the government pushing subprime loans.
7. We wouldn't have tax dollars going to the RESEARCH OF HARD ONS.
8. The Black Panthers would have been prosecuted
9. Oil supply would be greater
( I can go all day)
>>( I can go all day)
Easy to say what would/wouldn't have happened when there is no fact and it is purely your psychic powers to predict the alternate path that she would have took.
Maybe she would have tripped down the steps at the white house on day one and had no effect. Nobody knows.
(I wish no harm to anyone. Just an example.)
Easy to say what would/wouldn't have happened when there is no fact and it is purely your psychic powers to predict the alternate path that she would have took.
Maybe she would have tripped down the steps at the white house on day one and had no effect. Nobody knows.
(I wish no harm to anyone. Just an example.)
First it doesn't matter if the economy turns or doesn't unless congress also is all republican. If there is any problem with the economy, the party in the white house blames congress. If there is success, the party in the white house takes credit. Same is true in the opposite direction.
Good example is Clinton and his good budget which the Republicans always say was because of Newt in Congress.
Second. How did the democrats lose a lot of power after Carter? Republicans had one guy win and then his VP for one term. Then a Democrat got back in for two terms. Hardly a domination by the Republicans.