Saturday, August 30, 2008

"By any standard."

“By any standard, Governor Palin is less prepared as commander in chief than Obama.”

I usually agree with Medved, but I’m puzzled by his standard of comparison.

To begin with, Palin, unlike Obama, isn’t running for the top job, so the comparison is inapt.

But suppose we do compare them? I’m happy to concede that Palin has a thin resume. No reason to deny the obvious.

That doesn’t mean that Obama’s resume is heftier than hers. And I like what I see in her thin resume a good deal more than what I see in his thin resume. Let’s take stock:

He has a law degree from an Ivy League law school. This is the sort of Far Left institution that’s produced a runway court system. Rogue judges who shred the Constitution. And Obama shares their philosophy.

After that he spent a few years as an ambulance chaser…I mean…“community organizer.”

He also hobnobbed with an impenitent member of the Weather Underground. And he attended a racist, anti-American church for 20 years.

He has no executive experience. What about legislative experience?

Well, he had a lot of experience in the Illinois state legislature voting “present.” He also opposed the Born-Alive Act.

And he’s a first-term US senator who is using his Senate seat purely as a launch pad to run for President.

Did I leave anything out?

I suppose that by the standards of Gore Vidal, Ramsey Clark, and Noam Chomsky, Palin is less prepared to be Commander-in-Chief than Obama.

So, I guess Medved is right. Tautologically speaking, if you judge the two candidates by any standard whatsoever, then you can dredge up a “standard” by which Palin is less prepared than Obama.


  1. In our opinion, we think that the presidency and vice-presidency should only be vacated by men who have served in the military.

    Two reason:

    #1- The Commander-in-Chief and his vice should have military experience (served in the military), if he is going to send his troops to war.

    What business does any President have leading his country into war if he has never had any war-time experience?

    #2- Combat is for men, not women.:) Therefore, it is absurd to have a woman leading the national armed forces into war.

    Our reasons produce these opinions for the presidency and his vice:

    1- McCain is qualified to be the Commander-in-Chief.

    2- Palin is not qualified to be vice Commander-in-Chief.(See Reason #1 & #2).

    3- Obama is not qualifed. (See Reason #1)

    4- Biden is not qualified. (See reason #1)

    Qualified candidates running for the Presidency should only be for men who have served in the US Miltary.


  2. Chadwick,

    Why should the military experience be a pre-requisite? And how much?

    How about someone who served for three years and never made it above an E-3? Is that enough experience to lead the troops to war? Why or why not?


  3. "What business does any President have leading his country into war if he has never had any war-time experience?"

    Two examples of such individuals in US History; Woodrow Wilson & Franklin Roosevelt.

    Commander in Chief is one responsibility of the President. One of the primary motivations to have a civilian at the head of the Armed Forces is to insure that the military is used only when necessary rather than at the whim of professional soldiers.

    Because Sarah Palin is the Governor of Alaska she is also Commander in Chief of the Alaskan National Guard and has executive power over that institution.

    Should she have served in the National Guard prior to being elected to her current position?

  4. johnmark,

    Hypothetically speaking, if you had a brain tumor, would you want someone who was a veteran operating on you? or would you prefer someone who knows a lot about brain surgery, yet has never performed an operation? ;)


    See my response to johnmark. :)