Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Are You Experienced?
Comparing Barack Obama and Sarah Palin's readiness to govern
Praising John McCain's running mate the other day, President Bush made one of those comments that reveals more than intended. "Well, she's had executive experience," he said, "and that's what it takes to be a capable person here in Washington, D.C., in the executive branch."
He didn't notice the implication that McCain, a three-term senator, would be sorely deficient as president. Nor did it occur to the former chief executive of Texas that his administration has utterly failed to prove the wisdom of putting a governor in the White House.
Bush was echoing a favorite new theme of conservatives: that a politician of meager experience is ready to lead the Free World. Until recently, McCain and Co. were appalled that the Democratic Party would entrust the presidency to a young person with a thin resume. But since Sarah Palin joined the ticket, they have revised their view.
First, they dismiss the importance of experience. William Kristol wrote in The New York Times that McCain and Barack Obama "undoubtedly thought highly enough of their running mates to have confidence in their ability to take over their administration in case of incapacity or death. I think most voters will accept that basic judgment." If McCain says she can do it, who are we to doubt?
Second, they insist she has more and better experience than Obama, anyway. At the Republican convention, Rudy Giuliani lamented that Obama has "never run a city, never run a state, never run a business"—unlike Palin, who was a mayor before becoming governor of Alaska two years ago. Giuliani didn't mention what he said when he was running against McCain: "He has never run a city, never run a state, never run a government."
But the charge that Obama lacks the necessary background has some merit. Eight years in the Illinois General Assembly and four years in the U.S. Senate is pretty modest training for the most powerful job on earth.
Still, he has spent more time in elected posts than Hillary Clinton, and no one doubted her credentials. When he ran in 2000, Bush himself had spent only half as much time in elective office as Obama has.
The Democratic nominee's other jobs, such as teaching constitutional law, look like better training than, say, helping to run a baseball team. As for McCain's 26 years on Capitol Hill, wasn't it Republicans who used to say there was such a thing as being in Washington too long?
Preparation for the presidency requires more than occupying an executive position or spending decades on Capitol Hill. What makes Obama more ready than Palin? The obvious thing is what he's been doing for the last 18 months.
He had to develop and demonstrate a sure grasp of all the issues that present themselves in the Oval Office. He's been grilled about his voting record, his pastor, and his convicted former fundraiser. He's campaigned in 48 states and defeated a formidable opponent.
By now, he's made himself plausible—not necessarily desirable, but plausible—as president in a way that Washington veterans like Fred Thompson and Chris Dodd simply couldn't do.
We also know something substantive about Obama's judgment from his early opposition to the Iraq war. Contrary to Palin's claims, he has used his time in the legislature and the Senate to sponsor and pass some useful legislation, such as a tighter congressional ethics bill.
She, on the other hand, has never had to address issues beyond the borders of Alaska. Even on her signature issue, the bridge to nowhere, Palin changed her position from "for" to "against" only when it became politically advantageous.
Until being chosen, she had apparently never set out her views on the Iraq war, and she never spelled out her policies on the most pressing national problems. We don't know if she's ever thought about them. It's anyone's guess if Palin has any guiding philosophy.
Nor is McCain eager to let her tell us. Dan Quayle, widely ridiculed as an airhead when he joined George Bush's 1988 ticket, was answering questions from the news media the next day. But for two weeks after she was picked, the supposedly fearless Palin dodged interviews. At this point, voters don't know enough to gauge whether she has the brains or the temperament for the presidency.
Of course, McCain didn't either, and it didn't stop him.
COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
jkp|9.11.08 @ 7:18AM|#
Got it. Palin's decision on the Bridge was politically
motivated, so it doesn't count. Obama's position on Iraq was
clearly a sincere, heartfelt one, not merely an example of a party
hack trimming his sails to the prevailing political winds from the
base of his party, so it provides deep insights into his
judgments.
It is also my belief that Matt Welch should be fired.
MJ|9.11.08 @ 7:30AM|#
Chapman's making the argument that running for president is good
training for being president? Oh, come off of it.
Teaching constitutional law is good experience? Maybe, but are
Obama's views on the law anything anyone who respects the
constitution as written would want in someone making SCOTUS
appointments?
All in all, Obama's and Palin's political inexperience is at least
comparable and that's not a plus for Obama. He's puthimself up for
the top job, she's only going for the #2 slot.
Other Matt|9.11.08 @ 7:42AM|#
Teaching constitutional law is good experience?
Could be, let's look at the record of what he's published, his
positions, etc. Oh, wait, never mind.
|9.11.08 @ 7:51AM|#
As far as I'm concerned, Sarah Palin's inexperience -- as well
as Obama's -- is a feature, not a bug.
I can forgive Palin's change in position on an issue such as the
bridge. Isn't it just obvious that one cannot accomplish anything
in politics -- including reducing the size and intrusiveness of
government itself -- unless one does "politically expedient" things
often enough to survive?
We make something between a leap of faith and an educated guess on
Election Day. Sarah Palin is the first major party candidate for
President or Vice President since I began voting in 1972 who has
said the federal government is already too big. That tells me she
has a clue. That makes her worth a vote.
Even if I have to take McCain as part of the deal, I want to
advance Palin's career.
Obama's legislative history (with the possible exception of the law
he co-sponsored with the McCain ally Tom Coburn) tells us that his
response to problems is more government. Everything I know about
his current platform and his history of community organizing
reinforces that threat.
Very Possible It won't Last 'til February, but that's my current
thinking. After the election we should all revert to skepticism,
remembering that it's the same government, different fleas.
|9.11.08 @ 8:22AM|#
jkp
No, the problem with Palin's "bridge to nowhere" narrative isn't
that it's politically motivated, it's that it's bullshit. And she
continues to repeat the lie that she "told Congress, 'no thanks'"
even after everyone (except for the morons who think BO's "lipstick
on a pig" thing was sexist) knows it.
Peter K.
I seem to recall Ronald Reagan saying "the federal government is
already too big" in just about every campaign speech he made. It
was certainly the central theme of the '80 campaign.
Not that anything happened to reduce the size of the FedGov on his
watch.
Which leads to the question, "we should believe any politician's
campaign promises...why?"
|9.11.08 @ 8:37AM|#
MJ said it, but it bears repeating. According to Chapman,
What makes Obama more ready than Palin? The obvious thing is what he's been doing for the last 18 months.
Right. Running for office is much more important than actually being in office.
Gilbert Martin|9.11.08 @ 8:42AM|#
Obama is the one running for president - not Palin.
As for the "bridge to nowhere" issue - Obama voted for it so his
campaign has no room to talk.
|9.11.08 @ 8:52AM|#
There are at least two reasons that Palin's experience shouldn't
be an issue.
First, as someone noted in an article on here, a fresh face from
outside Washington is a good thing in and of itself. Washington
experience is nothing to be touted.
Second, she will be VP, not president. So she will immediately get
the best experience possible.
Besides those points, releasing Dan Quayle to reporters was a huge
mistake. I see know problem with giving her a crash course in
whatever she needs to know about, when every other candidate was
able to develop talking points outside the spotlight. Keeping her
away from the media helps them avoid gaffes. Also, the media set
themselves up for this. By firing on all cylinders last week, they
allowed the McCain camp to say they weren't releasing her until
they were sure the press would treat her properly, not engaging in
media bias. And for once, they have a good point.
|9.11.08 @ 9:00AM|#
Obama voted for it so his campaign has no room to talk.
The only time Obama has talked about this has been to point out
that she's a liar.
Actually, I don't actually recall Obama saying anything about it,
but his campaign and other surrogates have.
|9.11.08 @ 9:06AM|#
Incidentally, did BO vote for the earmark or just for
the routine spending bill that contained it (and many
others).
We already know that BO is a big tax and spend liberal. Of course
he voted for it.
Palin campaigned on the bridge, she lobbied for Federal funds for
the bridge, she took the funds and spent them on other projects
after the bridge was cancelled. She's lobbying for another 200mil
this year.
Gee, why am I not convinced she's our "make government smaller"
savior?
Elemenope|9.11.08 @ 9:08AM|#
As for the "bridge to nowhere" issue - Obama voted for it so
his campaign has no room to talk.
What Issac said, *but also* trying to tie a legislator to a
specific earmark because he voted for the entire appropriations
bill is slightly asinine. It demonstrates either a crass
disingenuous bent or a certain glaring naivete about how budget
bills are passed.
|9.11.08 @ 9:10AM|#
Hey, I have an idea: maybe we can have 10 more Palin posts about exactly the same shit every fucking time! Oh wait, we already do.
idiotface|9.11.08 @ 9:15AM|#
I know this has been said before, but I'll say it again, "Where are the naked Palin pics?" If they don't show up on Hit N Run, I'm canceling my subscription!
k|9.11.08 @ 9:21AM|#
Horatio Hack strikes again.......who gives a shit about experience when one (obama) would have us living in a quasi socialist state, while the other (Palin) would have us living in a theocracy.....go thing we got this experience thing sorted out
|9.11.08 @ 9:22AM|#
Obama has campaigned in "48 states?" Which two did he skip? I know he's from Hawaii...
|9.11.08 @ 9:25AM|#
I equate Obama and Palin to rookies.
Last year, Dustin Pedroia won the starting 2nd base position in
Spring Training, and held it all year. He was a rookie, and all
year, everyone thought of him as a rookie. Rookie of the Year, but
still a rookie.
Then they had the September call up, and all of these players who'd
spent the year in AAA ball joined the roster. There were some
really talented guys, like David Murphy (who's now with the
Rangers). When they came up, all of a sudden, Dustin Pedroia
stopped looking like the new kid. You could see the difference.
|9.11.08 @ 9:27AM|#
And I know he's campaigned in Michigan. And Florida.
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2007/sep/30/obama-vows-do-whats-right/news-breaking/
Gilbert Martin|9.11.08 @ 9:31AM|#
"We already know that BO is a big tax and spend liberal"
And that, of course, makes it physically impossible for him to be
superior to anyone on earth who isn't.
|9.11.08 @ 9:34AM|#
Is this article a joke? It reads like it was dictated to Chapman at gunpoint by a goon-squad from the DNC. It has no real analysis and simply repeats the campaign propaganda coming from the Obama campaign ever since Palin was announced. Am I supposed to be informed or swayed by this? Because all I get out of it is a sense of embarrassment for the writer.
|9.11.08 @ 9:44AM|#
Even on her signature issue, the bridge to nowhere, Palin
changed her position from "for" to "against" only when it became
politically advantageous.
Even on her signature issue, the bridge to nowhere, Palin
changed her position from "for" to "against" only when it became
politically advantageous.
[cough, cough] FISA telecom immunity. [cough, cough]. Excuse me, I
appear to have something stuck in my throat.
Don't worry, I will not vote for McCain/Palin. Still, the bridge to
nowhere (1/4 billion in pork) vs FISA with telecom immunity
excusing illegal violations of your privacy and likely covering up
crimes by Bush administration officials.
Which of these issues bothers you the most?
|9.11.08 @ 9:49AM|#
Obama is still against telecom immunity. He was presented with a
large bill containing provisions he liked, and provisions he didn't
like.
Rather different from working for, then against, a specific
earmark.
|9.11.08 @ 9:53AM|#
Which of these issues bothers you the most?
Good point.
But for what it's worth, for me it's not really about busting on
Palin for lying, it's questioning why they continue to lie after
being exposed. Are they that stupid or is it that they think the
people are that stupid?
Oh wait, never mind, I know the answer to that.
Gilbert Martin
Since the choice seems to be "tax'n'spend liberals" or
"borrow'n'spend conservatives" I wonder if it matters.
robc|9.11.08 @ 9:57AM|#
Chapman fails again, I dont even know where to start.
Clinton had the necessary experience? Did anyone think that?
Teaching con law is better experience than running a baseball team?
I just flat out call bullshit on that. Hell, in 1992, despite
Bush's 4 years as Pres, 8 as veep and years in the cia and
elsewhere and despite Clinton's 376 years as governor of Arkansas,
Perot clearly was the most experienced candidate for the job. Thats
right, Im claiming that running a major business is better
experience than actually having served a term as president.
|9.11.08 @ 9:58AM|#
"""Sarah Palin is the first major party candidate for President
or Vice President since I began voting in 1972 who has said the
federal government is already too big. That tells me she has a
clue. """
In 2000 Bush ran on a limited government platform. How did that
turn out.
A clue doesn't mean crap in the political world, and it's often
deceiving.
robc|9.11.08 @ 10:03AM|#
In 2000 Bush ran on a limited government platform. How did
that turn out.
No he didnt. He ran on compassionate conservatism- which screamed
bigger government.
|9.11.08 @ 10:06AM|#
Actually, Bush ran on both small government and compassionate conservatism, and nobody called him on it, because Al Gore invented the internet.
robc|9.11.08 @ 10:06AM|#
lmnop,
*but also* trying to tie a legislator to a specific earmark
because he voted for the entire appropriations bill is slightly
asinine. It demonstrates either a crass disingenuous bent or a
certain glaring naivete about how budget bills are
passed.
Or a 3rd possibility - a higher standard. If you hold with the
standard that voting for a bill that has even one unconstitutional
clause in it is a violation of your oath, for example, then by a
similar standard, a legislator who voted for an omnibus bill is
voting in favor of EVERYTHING inside it.
Ron Paul|9.11.08 @ 10:07AM|#
"He's been grilled about his voting record, his pastor, and his
convicted former fundraiser."
Grilled? You can't be serious. Obama has skated through 18+ months
of running for President and we've yet to have one serious
mainstream investigative reporting piece on his ties to
Rezko.
I didn't realize Reason was a place for liberal writers to parade
around dressed up like libertarians. As long as this guy is writing
here, this place IS NOT a libertarian haven.
|9.11.08 @ 10:07AM|#
Obama is still against telecom immunity.
Not that it matters, of course. When push came to shove, he didn't
filibuster, but went along with the crowd.
Which is kind of the knock on him, at the end of the day. He has
yet to show real leadership, the kind where you get out in front
and make a difference on something. That's hard for Senators to do,
of course, not to mention freshman Senators, junior state
legislators, academics and community organizers, which is pretty
much sums up his resume.
At the end of the day, I think a lot of the unease with Obama
arises from the way he has spent his career in a lefty/lib
professional bubble. All those "present" votes in Illinois. All
those months not in the Senate because he was campaigning. The
carefully managed list of non-controversial bills he put his name
on. The total absence of out-of-the-lefty-lib box positions, not to
mention academic scholarship that could be scrutinized.
The one issue he took a high profile on was the surge, and on that
he was just wrong. There's just not a lot to counterbalance that
one bad call.
I really think the original plan was to get him a little seasoning
this cycle, so he would be ready to move up in due time in eight
years, or possibly be the VP candidate. I suspect the Dem Plan A
from a year ago may have been a Hillary/Obama ticket, which would
have been very hard to beat. Harder than Obama/Biden, anyway.
He would have been a much stronger candidate in eight years, but
right now, his resume is just light for the top job. This is
looking to me like a classic case of the Peter Principle, with
Obama getting that one promotion too many.
robc|9.11.08 @ 10:12AM|#
joe,
Off of this topic, I dont know how closely you follow the money
markets as opposed to the polls, and which you weigh as more
accurate, but if you havent noticed, McCain passed Obama on intrade
this week.
I havent seen any of the other trading markets, so I dont know if
it across the board or not.
|9.11.08 @ 10:14AM|#
Obama is still against telecom immunity. He was presented
with a large bill containing provisions he liked, and provisions he
didn't like.
joe, you're so cute when you carry water for the Dems while
disregarding how dirty it may be.
robc|9.11.08 @ 10:26AM|#
Coolidge, like Jackie Robinson a few years later, was both Rookie of the Year and MVP.
robc|9.11.08 @ 10:28AM|#
Um, before someone beats me to it, Jackie won his MVP 2 years
after his Rookie of the Year - he finished 5th in the MVP voting
that year.
Sigh. Accuracy would have made it a better analogy.
Father Time|9.11.08 @ 10:28AM|#
I didn't realize Reason was a place for liberal writers to
parade around dressed up like libertarians.
Where have you been for the last decade or so?
Reason libertarianism = Nick Gillespie's preferred policy positions
+ some occasional mumbling about Hayek - any clue as to what
libertarianism actually is.
|9.11.08 @ 10:28AM|#
I believe you, robc. I'll be a lot of Reason readers did.
Smarter than average bunch, and they pay closer attention.
J sub D,
I didn't think is was such a complicated point, but I'll explain it
again for you.
Imagine if there was an Omnibus Children's Vaccine and Feeding Your
Granny to a Tiger Act in Congress. Barack Obama comes out against
feeding your granny to a tiger, and in favor of vaccinating
children. He tries to get the Tiger part removed, but fails, so he
votes against the bill, and it fails. Later, it comes up again.
Once again, he's in favor of vaccinating children, and against
feeding your granny to a tiger. He tries to get the tiger part
removed and fails again. This time, he votes for the entire
package.
As opposed to Sarah Palin. When the bill first comes up, she is an
enthusiastic supporter of feeding your granny to a tiger. She
lobbies hard to make sure that language is included in the bill.
Later, when it comes up a second time, she realizes that it
politically unwise to support that position, so she flip-flops, and
now argues against feeding your granny to a tiger. But not only
that - she also travels around the country bragging about how she's
always been against feeding your granny to a tiger, and led the
opposition to including that language in the bill.
Barack Obama's position on the issues didn't change; Sarah Palin's
did. Barack Obama accurately and honestly described his position on
those issues; Sarah Palin did not.
I appreciate your vapid, content-free response, as it gave me a
great chance to expand on my point. Thanks.
|9.11.08 @ 10:30AM|#
Obama is still against telecom immunity. He was presented
with a large bill containing provisions he liked, and provisions he
didn't like.
Uh, yeah...one of those provisions being telecom immunity, which he
ended up supporting.
It's all kinds of great to be against something in your head or
"really believe it in your heart" or whatevs, but he voted
for it. He supported it when it matters.
|9.11.08 @ 10:31AM|#
Obama and Palin are both rookies.
Yes, that's my point.
Evan Longoria and a relief pitcher who started the season in Double
A ball, went to Triple A in July, and got called up to the major
leage roster in September are both rookies, too.
|9.11.08 @ 10:31AM|#
This time, he votes for the entire package.
Meaning that he changed his mind and feeding your grandmother to a
tiger doesn't really concern him all that much.
Mark|9.11.08 @ 10:32AM|#
I just want to voice my support for Steve Chapman. There was nothing wrong with this article and it makes some good points. Get off your high horses.
robc|9.11.08 @ 10:33AM|#
joe,
I favor assassinating anyone who voted in favor of feeding granny
to a tiger just in order to get children vaccinated. :)
Was that supposed to be a pro-Obama argument?
Really, you couldnt come up with a better analogy than that?
Getting some minor good passed by committing a major atrocity? Is
that really the Obama way?
robc|9.11.08 @ 10:34AM|#
joe,
I believe you, robc. I'll be[t] a lot of Reason readers
did.
Then why did you use the phrase "nobody" then? Is that really what
you think of us?
|9.11.08 @ 10:35AM|#
one of those provisions being telecom immunity, which he
ended up supporting.
See "Omnibus Vaccinating Children and Feeding Your Granny to a
Tiger Act."
but he voted for it.
No, he didn't vote for IT (telecom immunity). When IT (telecom
immunity) was up for a vote, he voted against IT (telecom
immunity). When a larger bill, containing IT and a bunch of other
things, was up for a vote, he voted for that.
If there was no record of a politician's position on one item in a
large bill, it is fair to say he supported each item in that bill.
That's not what happened here. We don't have to try to divine
Barack Obama's position on telecom immunity from how he voted on
the larger bill; we know that he was against it. Not in his head,
on the floor of the Senate, in the official record, when IT was the
item being voted on.
Gilbert Martin|9.11.08 @ 10:35AM|#
"Gilbert Martin
Since the choice seems to be "tax'n'spend liberals" or
"borrow'n'spend conservatives" I wonder if it matters."
It matters if the "tax" part of the tax and spend means more money
coming out of MY wallet.
|9.11.08 @ 10:37AM|#
Was that supposed to be a pro-Obama argument?
It's supposed to be an accurate argument. Perhaps that, rather than
the partisan implications, would be the best place to start when
evaluating a statement someone makes.
Honestly, can't you people ever think of anything beyond
Republicans and Democrats?
|9.11.08 @ 10:38AM|#
joe - you wonder why you're thought of as a spintastic hackmaster. You shouldn't.
|9.11.08 @ 10:38AM|#
Then why did you use the phrase "nobody" then? Is that
really what you think of us?
Yes. People who are smarter than average and pay close attention
are a minority, and libertarians are a minority of that
minority.
robc|9.11.08 @ 10:38AM|#
joe,
While your 10:35 post is correct, it also tells us the relative
importance of telecom immunity to Obama. While he opposed it, he
obviously didnt consider it that important an issue. He didnt
oppose it a outrance (to borrow a phrase I learned from the late
WFB). Some people consider it that important an issue. Obama is not
one of them.
|9.11.08 @ 10:40AM|#
I know my arguments are particularly effective when people can't even voice an objection on evidence or logic before assuring me that they must be wrong because I'm teh partisan.
robc|9.11.08 @ 10:40AM|#
It's supposed to be an accurate argument.
Cool, I now know that Obama will commit horrible atrocities in
order to get children vaccinated.
|9.11.08 @ 10:40AM|#
When you say yes to an omnibus bill, it's apparently ok to really, really believe that some provisions of it shouldn't be there. But still vote for them...or something...
|9.11.08 @ 10:42AM|#
robc,
Wouldn't you have to look at what else is in the bill, and Obama's
positions on those items, before deciding how strongly he opposed
it?
Noting that A outweighs B tells us nothing about B's weight, unless
we know A's weight.
|9.11.08 @ 10:43AM|#
Sarah Palin is the first major party candidate for President
or Vice President since I began voting in 1972 who has said the
federal government is already too big.
That's not true. That's not even close to true.
That's...false.
That tells me she has a clue.
No, that tells you that her handlers opened the GOP playbook to
page one and said "say this."
That makes her worth a vote.
Fair enough. It is worth "a" vote. I just hope the millions of
other votes are cast for rational reasons.
Even if I have to take McCain as part of the deal, I want to
advance Palin's career.
Yeah, that makes sense. All those people in the Middle East who are
likely to die when McCain invades, they're just collateral damage
to the goal of helping a VP candidate. All questions of American
foreign and domestic policy should take a back seat to this cult of
personality.
If you want to advance Palin's career, move to Alaska.
|9.11.08 @ 10:44AM|#
When you say yes to an omnibus bill, it's apparently ok to
really, really believe that some provisions of it shouldn't be
there. But still vote for them...or something...
No, not "or something." When the Omnibus bill comes to the floor,
you get an up or down vote on the whole thing. You don't get to
vote nuance, you don't get to cast an essay. There's a little
button marked "Yes" and little button marked "No," and you push one
of them.
That's the difference between a Senator and an observer.
robc|9.11.08 @ 10:45AM|#
People criticized Ron Paul for sending on earmarks to committe
and then voting against the bills they are contained within.
That is much better to me than voting for a bill that contains bits
you oppose.
I dont understand you people who think the 2nd is okay and the 1st
is wrong. Really, wtf? Im okay with it if you think both are wrong
or both are okay. But if you defend the latter and criticize the
former, your logic is screwed up.
|9.11.08 @ 10:46AM|#
R C Dean is voting for McCain.
True or False: this demonstrates his suppport for
McCain-Feingold.
|9.11.08 @ 10:49AM|#
robc,
Senator A votes to include language mandating that your mother be
fed to a tiger be included in the bill, then votes against the
whole bill.
Senator B votes to strip the language about feeding your granny to
a tiger, but when that fails, votes for the whole bill.
Which one of these people supports feeding your granny to a
tiger?
Now, is it legitimate for someone who doesn't want to feed your
granny to a tiger to say that Senator B didn't weigh the issues
appropriately? Sure. It is not legitimate to say that he supported
feeding your granny to a tiger.
robc|9.11.08 @ 10:50AM|#
joe,
Noting that A outweighs B tells us nothing about B's weight,
unless we know A's weight.
You did notice my use of "a outrance". It tells us something about
B's weight.
Using your analogy, I would vote against the "Turn the US into
libertopia and feed joe's granny to a tiger" bill. Without having
ever met her, I value your granny's life more than living in the
society I most want. If I voted for that bill, it would absolutely
tell me something about B, that I dont really value life.
Whether telecom immunity should be that important, I dont know, you
are the one who compared it to granny->tiger.
What Obama's vote says is that opposition to telecom immunity wasnt
near the very top of his list of priorities (the rest of the bill
really wasnt that important).
Rhywun|9.11.08 @ 10:50AM|#
Can we just split the damn job in two already, like every other country on earth?
|9.11.08 @ 10:51AM|#
joe, didn't you once post something like, I'll support immunity
for telecom execs, in exchange for testimony against government
officials! With anger and effusive outrage for the illegal
wiretapping done by the Bush administrantion?
I don't recall the "unless it's part of a larger FISA bill. Even
one that can wait while while the congress gets it right. Then
immunity is acceptable".
My bad.
robc|9.11.08 @ 10:53AM|#
Senator A votes to include language mandating that your
mother be fed to a tiger be included in the bill, then votes
against the whole bill.
That is analogous to the Ron Paul situation. He never votes to
include the earmarks in the bill. He merely passes all* requests on
to committee. I blame the committee for putting the tiger policy in
the bill.
*you know, except the silly ones, like this would be
|9.11.08 @ 10:55AM|#
See "Omnibus Vaccinating Children and Feeding Your Granny to
a Tiger Act."
All I know is, Granny got fucked either way.
"Now, person A didn't mean to run Grandma over with a reindeer, it
was just an unintended consequence. Person B aimed for her wittle
granny head with malice aforethought (I know he did, because I
dislike him personnally), so person A is my choice!"
robc|9.11.08 @ 10:56AM|#
That is analogous to the Ron Paul situation.
Put the appropriate NOT in there. Duh.
|9.11.08 @ 11:00AM|#
BTW, those annoying little "unintended consequences"?....Being
able to foresee them and to persuade others of the true course of
an action is part of that pesky little thing called "judgement and
experience"
Joe, as I've stated numerous times, McLovin' is decidedly a douche,
but you gotta quit trying to get me to vote for the turd.
Shills gives me da chills
|9.11.08 @ 11:04AM|#
I also know this is beating a dead horse, but, this kind of shit
is why we need a line-item veto, and an end to omnibus bills.
Reminds me of another sporting analogy: That of performance
enhancing drugs. If you have players who have learned to "game" the
system, then the only way to keep things clean is to make the rules
tougher to end-run.
|9.11.08 @ 11:12AM|#
Sure. It is not legitimate to say that he supported feeding
your granny to a tiger.
Except he voted for it. What definition of "support" are you going
off of?
|9.11.08 @ 11:42AM|#
R C Dean is voting for McCain.
Actually, no (and in no small part because of M-F, as well as my
oft-repeated characterization of him as an authoritarian
a-hole).
Seeing as my state is going McCain by a big margin, I'll vote big-L
Libertarian to preserve their ballot access for the next
go-around.
True or False: this demonstrates his suppport for
McCain-Feingold.
Even if I was voting for McCain, it would demonstrate nothing about
my support for M-F. Because I would not be casting a vote, in whole
or in part, for M-F; McCain is not an omnibus bill that includes
M-F, and McCain is not campaigning on a platform of pushing to get
M-F passed.
Now, if M-F was part of his platform, you could argue that by
voting for McCain I was also voting for that. But its not, and I'm
not, so you can't.
|9.11.08 @ 12:40PM|#
The change in Reason's editorial policy is just sad. This was
the magazine that was supposed to be unabashedly about free minds
and free markets, and today its writers are shilling for a man who
wants to implement the biggest expansion in government since the
new deal.
Obama wants every teenager to spend 50 hours a year doing service
for the state.
Obama wants huge new federal controls on health care.
Obama wants to raise taxes dramatically.
Obama wants to engage in wholesale industrial policy.
Obama wants the federal government to build low-income housing
across the country.
And the list goes on. In the meantime, the governor from the most
libertarian state in the union, a woman who supports jury
nullification, who cut 500 million in spending with vetoes, who is
strongly supporting the 2nd amendment, and who has been described
as an "uncompromising believer in free markets for health care" and
a strong advocate of transparency in government and smaller
government in general, is being torn apart in the pages of Reason
on the grounds that she's not tied closely enough with Washington
politics.
It's an amazing spectacle. This magazine is crashing and
burning.
By the way, her speech last week was the best articulation of free
market principles since Reagan was on the scene. She basically
repeated his mantra that government isn't the solution - it's the
problem. She trumpeted the good judgment of individuals, and
decried the bad judgment of federal politicians. She said
government is too big, has too much control, and meddles where it
shouldn't. It should have made libertarians ecstatic. And yet, the
comment threads on Reason, filled with self-proclaimed
libertarians, read like Daily freaking Kos. Truly
unbelievable.
I guess libertarianism has been co-opted by the angry, anti-war
left.
|9.11.08 @ 1:33PM|#
"Steve Chapman compares their levels of experience-executive and
otherwise."
Ok, I guess I'm immature, but this sounds like Chapman is implying
sexual stuff here. Anyone?
|9.11.08 @ 2:05PM|#
If campaigning around the country and teaching about the
Constitution are solid qualifications for the presidency, why
didn't Chapman support Michael Badnarik in 2004?
The Palin pick was a brilliant move by the McCain campaign, not
only because it suckers in the conservative base which was unhappy
with McCain, but because it raises the experience issue to a higher
level, making people reconsider how little experience Obama
has.
|9.11.08 @ 2:47PM|#
who gives a shit about experience when one (obama) would
have us living in a quasi socialist state, while the other (Palin)
would have us living in a theocracy
Sigh. As a standard issue lefty lib promising to raise taxes,
spending, and general government intervention in he economy, I
guess "quasi-socialist" is probably not completely out of bounds,
although it probably is somewhat contentious.
I admit to a conflict of interest here, as under Obama's announced
tax plans, he plans to take from $20 - 30,000 a year more out of my
pocket, so on that basis alone I have a hard time not applauding
any attempt to kick him in the nuts.
But what on earth has Palin done to make anyone think she wants a
theocracy? Banned any books? Pushed any abortion restrictions?
Anything? Anyone?
|9.11.08 @ 2:49PM|#
I guess libertarianism has been co-opted by the angry,
anti-war left.
It sure seems that way sometimes.
|9.11.08 @ 3:02PM|#
J sub D,
I never said I supported Obama's vote. I think it was the wrong
vote. I don't think there's anything in the FISA bill that's so
important as to justify telecom immunity.
My point was to refute a point you made - the Obama's change on
this is comparable to Palin's on the Bridge to Nowhere.
The two would be comparable if, after leading the earlier
filibuster, he saw that his position on telecom immunity was a
political loser, then voted for telecom immunity in committee, then
championed it on the floor, THEN went around telling everyone that
he had always been opposed to the bill.
He didn't do that. His position on telecom immunity has been
consistent throughout, and he never lied about it. Palin not only
changed her stance on an issue - not a vote on a big bill
containing things she liked and disliked, but on the specific issue
itself - but is now travelling around the country, saying that not
only are we at war with East Asia, but we have always been at war
with East Asia.
|9.11.08 @ 3:16PM|#
joe, keep carrying those buckets.
Here's how you deal with lying politicians and retain
credibilty.
Obama went back on his word and screwed the pooch on that one and
I'm pissed. He's still the best candidate for POTUS, but that still
pisses me off.
See my reaction to Ron Paul newsletters for a real life
example.
"But, but, but, It was part of a bigger bill" (that had no urgency
whatsoever), is just fanboy BS.
|9.11.08 @ 3:28PM|#
"I guess libertarianism has been co-opted by the angry, anti-war
left."
Well isn't anti-war (more anti-interventionism) one of the bigger
parts of libertarianism? Along with personal rights and government
spending?
At the end of the day both parties are going to spend a lot of
money - no matter what is said during the campaign. Whether it is
on war or on welfare.
Both parties will try to limit personal/civil rights. . .
anti-choice or anti-gun or. . .
The Magazine is fine. Just because it doesn't agree with what some
on here think, doesn't mean it is failing.
While the article shouldn't compare Palin and Obama straight up, I
do think Palin's ability to be POTUS needs to considered since she
would be a mere 73 year old heart beat from taking over the office.
And by all accounts she is not qualified.
Finding someone that isn't part of Washington is fine in a Utopian
society, at the end Washington still exists and will take decades
for it to change. A cold turkey treatment isn't going to happen or
work.
At the end I'll probably vote for Obama. I'd rather spend money on
the people here if I had to choose and I'd rather not be on the
cusp of intervening with every global incident.
Plus if Bill Clinton taught us anything, government spending can be
handled by democrats if done correctly.
zoltan|9.11.08 @ 3:54PM|#
How will Palin, as VP, institute a theocracy? Obama doesn't seem very secular either.
mr simple|9.11.08 @ 4:37PM|#
joe,
You are actually quite incorrect about Palin's position on the
bridge. If you actually read/see the governor debates you will see
that her support for the bridge amounted to "well, we're getting
the money, might as well build it." After congress lifted the
earmark, so the money was no longer required to be spent on the
bridge, she went against the established state party leaders and
killed the project. And then spent the money elsewhere where it was
needed.
In 2005 Coburn introduced a bill that would have taken the money
from the Bridge to Nowhere project and given it to Louisiana to
repair the bridges destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. Both Obama and
Biden voted against it, helping to kill the bill. It was not an
omnibus spending bill.
Neu Mejican|9.11.08 @ 5:35PM|#
Mr. Simple,
It's not that simple, sorry.
It was more...we better hurry up and build it while we can still
get the money from the feds.
She did support scaling it back a bit.
The lie, btw, includes the line "if we want to build the bridge,
we'll do it ourselves."
This after she has already taken the money to build the thing and
placed it in the general fund to buy other stuff.
Greg|9.11.08 @ 7:51PM|#
Puuulease. He tightened ethics reform? He came out against the
war in Iraq when he had nothing at stake? She had her entire career
at stake when she showed the cojones to rewrite the oil industry's
contract with Alaska -something that the last 40 years of
governors, with actual cojones, were afraid to do.
The first time Obama faced a controversial decision in his career,
he wimped out. Never forget FISA.
rap|9.11.08 @ 9:18PM|#
check this link for a different take on Obama's community
organizer background.
http://www.utne.com/Politics/2008-09-08/Obama-the-Organizer.aspx?blogid=30&utm_source=iPost&utm_medium=email
PS - sorry, don't know how to put it into html
r
Nick|9.11.08 @ 11:34PM|#
I'm a member of the anti-war Left, and I think Obama sucks. I'm
starting to think he actually does suck more than McCain, and
considering the likely Democratic Congress would pass all of
Obama's entitlements and regulations without so much as a second
glance, I think libertarians need to be very concerned.
He said tonight at the service forum that his goal was to make
government "cool." That is scary, scary, scary. The government is a
tool that has historically oppressed the poor and minorities,
funded corporations, crushed small businesses, launched wars and
damaged the environment beyond belief. I don't believe making it
bigger makes it "cooler", especially considering it swings towards
more authoritarian politicians from time to time who use the
expansive government infrastructure to violate individual
liberties. Even if Obama were preferable to McCain on foreign
policy and maybe some social issues, his vision of government isn't
even remotely skeptical.
Reason is doing itself a disservice by not presenting a balanced
attack on both sides. Both candidates are terrible for liberty, and
Obama should be equally or possibly frightening to all libertarians
(including those of us on the anti-war libertarian Left). He's
selling socialism to America with an uplifting message and smiling
face, which is in my opinion as contrary to progress as it is to
liberty. I think Matt Welch's book is creating an editorial bias at
Reason to selectively exclude harsher criticism of Obama (lest it
makes McCain look more preferable).
Kendall|9.12.08 @ 1:53AM|#
Come on, you mention she ran a "baseball team" but nothing about
owning a small business? How is that not in fact more valuable
practical experience than teaching constitutional law?
And the article seems to confuse the whole executive/legislative
branch thing....
For shame Reason, for shame. Should I just go read Kos or
Huffington instead?
Kendall|9.12.08 @ 2:00AM|#
Well isn't anti-war (more anti-interventionism) one of the
bigger parts of libertarianism? Along with personal rights and
government spending?
I question the fundamental assumptions you are making.
You equate war with personal rights. You confuse government
spending with local control.
Libertarians will support war when it is necessary in order to keep
together a society so that it might remain Libertarian, or at least
people might remain free to make that choice.
In the larger scope of things, I support helping other countries
reach stability to the point where the citizens there have the
option of deciding to be Libertarians themselves. To the extent you
are able to help your neighbor, you do so - that is why local
control works, that is why real world Libertarianism works, and
that is why some intervention in the global neighborhood is needed
from time to time instead of looking the other way while the
metaphorical government husband beats the metaphorical wife
populace nightly.
Obviously you cannot help everyone. But neither does this mean you
should help no-one - including yourself.
Ebeneezer Scrooge|9.12.08 @ 3:56AM|#
It's an amazing spectacle. This magazine is crashing and
burning.
A-yup. And it is sad because there isn't much on the table for
alternatives.
I guess libertarianism has been co-opted by the angry, anti-war
left.
Most days around here, you'd have to conclude that.
But there's still some interesting controversy from time to time,
and you can still pick up something here and there from the
threads.
And once in a very great while, there's actually more than one or
two people around here who aren't just angry leftists.
Ebeneezer Scrooge|9.12.08 @ 4:01AM|#
Reason is doing itself a disservice by not presenting a
balanced attack on both sides.
I'll drink to that. On net balance the drift around here usually
comes out implying that Obama is the lesser evil.
That, if we be reasonable, is just not the case.
McCain is slain, already. How about let's get *serious* about the
other corner of of this boxing match?
That way we can all merrily be much more glum about our future.
Because we'll know just how right we are.
Ebeneezer Scrooge|9.12.08 @ 4:03AM|#
btw, this Steve Chapman guy's gotta go. Matt, I can remember
when you used to write much better stuff.
I mean, when you find a steaming pile out in the pasture, at least
stir it up good with a stick. This article doesn't even touch it
(eeewwww!!!!).
|9.12.08 @ 8:19AM|#
Palin's inexperience is unacceptable whereas Obama's inexperience is fine. The reason is that Palin is a woman, plain and simple. All the other excuses are crap.
|9.12.08 @ 3:55PM|#
Just saying ...
Even if I have to take McCain as part of the deal, I want to advance Palin's career.
See "Omnibus Vaccinating Children and Feeding Your Granny to a Tiger Act."
robc:
Some people consider it that important an issue.
You mean,
like McCain?
R C Dean:
On
banning books and abandoning libertarianism for theocracy, and
on restricting abortion
|9.12.08 @ 3:58PM|#
And that wasn't even hard. Are you guys so desperate to maintain the status quo that you are willing to ignore your own previously-stated principles? Look through your lipstick-colored glasses all you want ... it's still a pig.
St. V|9.12.08 @ 4:40PM|#
Running for president... is enough experience gathering... to be
president? If I run for president, will I then be able to make the
claim that I am thusly qualified for the position? lmao.
Then again, as a Senator, Obama is undoubtably more involved with
national issues to a degree that Gov. Palin, at least based on her
role as governor, can't touch. I can't speak to her actual personal
involvment relating to national issues and self-education.
I can't wait for the veep debates. We may actually have a better
insight into what this woman believes on national issues, so long
as the failure of a moderator that is Wolf Blitzer doesn't get the
nod.
The biggest shame here is that Barr is such an inept individual,
that perpetuating the duopoloy in voting for the "lesser of two
evils" may be less of an evil than voting for Barr.
Yikes...
|9.13.08 @ 3:37PM|#
If you want a really good take on the Palin story check out the
Sam Harris column in the Sept 3 LA Times. Here's part of it :
McCain has so little respect for the presidency of the United
States that he is willing to put the girl next door (soon, too, to
be a grandma) into office beside him. He has so little respect for
the average American voter that he thinks this reckless and cynical
ploy will work.
And it might. Palin's nomination has clearly excited Christian
conservatives, and it may entice a few million gender-obsessed fans
of Hillary Clinton to vote entirely on the basis of chromosomes.
Throw in a few million more average Americans who will just love
how the nice lady smiles, and 2009 could be a very interesting
year.
Anybody who has sat on a jury knows just how goofy this thng can
get.
Kendall|9.14.08 @ 11:10PM|#
Another aspect of Palins experience untouched by the original article, is that Palin had to negotiate with the Canadian government to get the pipeline deal done. What international negotiations has Obama been a part of, much less led?
|9.16.08 @ 12:08AM|#
What she's been campaigning for two weeks and hasn't talked to the press? Two weeks and hasn't just done a little Q and A. Yes there both rookies but hey you know if she was treated like every other male candidate she would but exposed in about a minute. Who out there thinks she's smart? Really? Do you call a squirrel smart cause it can get into a bird feeder. This site is called Reason. Not Pragmatic or Committed or Dogmatic. She repeats the same crap whether its true or not. Shame on you John McCaine for making the political conversation about this. When he was on the "View" it reminded me of Bogey in the Cain Mutiny blathering about "the strawberries"
Leave a Comment
More Articles by Steve Chapman
- Sarah Palin and the Decline of Conservatism, Steve Chapman, November 19, 2009
- Gay Marriage Lost, But It's Not Losing, Steve Chapman, November 16, 2009
- Muslims and Mass Murder, Steve Chapman, November 12, 2009
Related Articles (Campaigns/Elections, Barack Obama, John McCain)
- Mandating Disaster, Shikha Dalmia, November 20, 2009
- Are Tea Parties Racist?, Matt Welch, November 16, 2009
- The Secret Message of Stimulus Spending, Veronique de Rugy, November 3, 2009
- Sanity on Marijuana?, Steve Chapman, October 22, 2009
- In Defense of Fox News, David Harsanyi, October 21, 2009
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245