Be honest now!

Please, don't compare her to present or past presidents? Answer the question on its own merits.

Originally Posted by Talk Host

Be honest now!

Please, don't compare her to present or past presidents. Answer the question on its own merits.

Sounds like your question is slanted against her. How about this for the question. How many people think Mrs. Palin would make a great President? I find that the poll takers can influence the polls by how they arrange the questions.

My question is not slanted against her, where as your question is slanted in her favor. If you are unable to answer my question honestly, please don't change it to suit yourself.

Honestly, I do think she would be a good president (definitely better than Bush), but I will never be able to convince those that don't like her that she would be a good president. If the economy crumbles from the democratic social spending, she will be elected in 2012. No other conservatives other than loud Rush have the conservative notoriety to push the conservative economic agenda if the economy tanks. If the economy does not tank in the next 3 years, Democrats will be in power for 25 years and they will have earned that right. I was raised in a conservative Democratic family. I hope Democrats can save the economic future of this country but I sincerely doubt it. Their economic policies have leaned too far left.
Jim
Fair and unbalanced(according to my wife) and ready to get blasted.

Originally Posted by Talk Host

My question is not slanted against her. If you are unable to answer my question honestly, please don't change it to suit yourself.

Maybe my bad.


Does anybody really think Sarah Palin would be a good president.


I have read that question a few times and....How does this sound?

Does anybody really think Obama is a good president?
Ok..This is my spin:
I believe that the most important quality of being a president is judging people. I believe the people he chooses to surround himself is the foundation of a good or bad Cabinet. President Reagan had the quality to pick the right people for the right job. He knew how to designate.
A good example...President Bush decided to choose a different General and a different strategy for the Iraq War. It worked.
Obama seemed to pick candidates that were tax cheats. Maybe a character issue?

Originally Posted by Keedy

Maybe my bad.


Does anybody really think Sarah Palin would be a good president.


I have read that question a few times and....How does this sound?

Does anybody really think Obama is a good president?
Ok..This is my spin:
I believe that the most important quality of being a president is judging people. I believe the people he chooses to surround himself is the foundation of a good or bad Cabinet. President Reagan had the quality to pick the right people for the right job. He knew how to designate.
A good example...President Bush decided to choose a different General and a different strategy for the Iraq War. It worked.
Obama seemed to pick candidates that were tax cheats. Maybe a character issue?

I asked that she not be compared to current or past presidents. Can you answer my question?

Originally Posted by Talk Host

I asked that she not be compared to current or past presidents. Can you answer my question?

Sorry...Didn't mean to compare......I think she would make an excellent President because she has the qualities that I admire to make the right decisions and surround herself with the right people.

Originally Posted by Talk Host

Be honest now!

Please, don't compare her to present or past presidents. Answer the question on its own merits.

Semantics/grammar are important.

There was no question, such as Would Sarah Palin be a good president? Instead, there was a statement, Does anybody really think Sarah Palin would be a good president. with no question mark and followed by: Be honest now! Please, don't compare her to present or past presidents. Answer the question on its own merits.

The "anybody really think" and the rest of the post is indeed a negative slant, whether intentional or not.

In spite of it all, I'm one of those "anybody" folk who think she'd be as good as any of the pseudo-royalty types who claim the presidency as a birthright or believe their public speaking skills and TV image justify a vote. Personal castigation of anyone based on gender, religion and race - and taking cheap potshots at one's children - should be long-gone from the political scene, but seems to creep back into the fray when candidates lack the public speaking skills of a John Barrymore, the salesmanship of a community organizer, or when the party decides ]the end justifies the means.

Would Ms. Palin be a better president than the current 2nd-in-line for the office (Ms. Pelosi) - any day of the week!

I don't think she'd make a "good" President and certainly wouldn't be a "great" President. She simply does not have the education or experience to be the chief executive of arguably the most important country in the world. I seriously wonder who she might surround herself with in forming an administration. She has been wildly popular because of her pithy campaign statements and her "everyman" appeal, but I believe her ability to lead would erode very quickly were she elected. I'd also guess that she would have no real respect among other world leaders. There simply has to be a more experienced candidate who has demonstrated his/her ability to understand the policy decisions facing the country, who might be expected to assemble an administration from among people he/she knew personally and could have confidence in, and have demonstrated true leadership ability--not just mass popularity--either in government or the private sector.

Ask yourself the question: is it likely that she would be qualified to be the CEO of any of the world's largest companies? The answer is obvious, and if she wouldn't qualify for any of those jobs, how would she be qualified for POTUS?

If the GOP can't find a candidate that satisfies most of all of those criteria, the two-party system is in a lot more trouble than we think it is.

Again, don't respond with an assessment of any of the recent POTUS--Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush or Obama. The question posed by Talk Host was forward-looking and doesn't call for a recitation of opinions about past Presidents.

Chief Executive... State of Alaska..Case closed.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

She simply does not have the education or experience to be the chief executive of arguably the most important country in the world.
...
Ask yourself the question: is it likely that she would be qualified to be the CEO of any of the world's largest companies? The answer is obvious, and if she wouldn't qualify for any of those jobs, how would she be qualified for POTUS

And what is the correct "education and experience" to be POTUS?

Would the current POTUS be qualified to serve as CEO of a Fortune 100? If so, which one would have him?

She is definitely "of the people" and appears street-smart to the nth degree. Folk like that normally know their strengths and limitations, and tend to surround themselves with the most competent as a learned survival skill or they don't survive too long.

1) Palin elected twice to city council
2) Served 2- 3year terms as Mayor of Wasilla(1996-2002)
3)Chaired the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.
4) Elected Governor of Alaska.

Sorry, no community organizing on her resume.

that hold office in Washington today. NONE ARE QUALIFIED but managed to get elected or re-elected.

Sarah Palin has the capability to be a POTUS in training, just as the current and preceding ones have.
She has the quality of spontaneity that most politicians lack or do not employ...which means a more realistic answer would be forth coming. Those who ponder, evaluate, think too much are weighing the audience and determining what they think wants to be heard. Yes, with spontaneous answers comes, gaffs and possible mistakes....but they are usually real.

Her term as a Governor certainly provides more qualification than Hollywood or the legal education system.

She is certainly as believable as any of the incumbents in any position in Washington, DC.

A definite plus is that she is not a Washington insider.

And employing the advice that is especially applicable to the current POTUS...watch what she does not what she says.....she has much better qualification in that regard.

And lastly I conclude that since she did not turn the state of Alaska into a free money spending socialist state, she would take that same value to the WH.

As demonstrated by way too many prior POTUS and lawmakers.....education really does not show much result in the scheme of things.

btk

She would not be my first choice, but if nominated I would vote for her.

She simply does not have the education or experience to be the chief executive of arguably the most important country in the world.

And Obama does? Oh Please.

Would she make a great President? No. Would be make a great VP. Yes.

After that, we'd have to see and judge her on performance.

C'mon folks if she looked like Madeline Albright instead of the way she does you wouldn't give her the right time of day.