I wrote this in another thread:
So I ask, aside from gender, how is Palin different from Bush?
An excellent (and scary) article in the NYT today. She’s really no different from W, just more charismatic.
Palin does have some similarities to Bush but he had a lot more experience of national politics at this stage of his campaign . He was educated at Ivy League universities. He belonged to a major political family and saw the Presidency from the inside. He was the governor of a major state. He had an experienced political team and was groomed as a presidential candidate for at least a couple of years.
Palin was a political non-entity just two years ago and though she is good at reading prepared remarks it showed in her interviews with Gibson. What’s more the McCain campaign isn’t nearly as efficient as Bush’s. There appears to be one Palin-related gaffe or falsehood almost every day. The latest is McCain’s claim that Palin didn’t ask for earmarks as Governor which is of course completely false.
She is a lot like him, only LESS qualified.
Ivy League, membership of a political family, governorship of a major state, do not necessarily make a good President. Palin is certainly as qualified for the job as Obama.
If Palin is qualified she is doing a fine job hiding it. In her Gibson interviews, there wasn’t a single important issue where she came across as knowledgeable or authoritative. McCain is trying to portray as some kind of energy expert but she made a huge blunder saying Alaska’s share of the US energy supply was 20% (it’s less than 5).
The fact is that Alaska isn’t a very important or representative state. It has a tiny population and it benefits hugely from a high oil price which hurts the rest of the US economy. What does Palin know about the federal budget, Medicare, nuclear energy, the sub-prime financial crisis, nuclear non-proliferation, NATO expansion or global warming? There are probably hundreds of bright high-school students who know more about the big issues than Palin does.
Perhaps you didn’t notice the thread title, the OP’s post, or several posts after that, but the apparent purpose of the thread is to compare/contrast Palin to Bush. Not Obama. There are numerous other threads on that subject.
Obviously.
The article linked by Chefguy might as well be titled “Palin: Bush in a Skirt”. Obsessively secretive? Check. Intolerant of dissent? Check. Prefers to fill important positions with marginally competent cronies? Check. I expected it to say she likes to clear brush and once nearly choked on a pretzel.
Considering that Obama is not a member of a political family and has never been a Governor, I’m guessing aldiboronti meant to say Bush.
to interrupt the serious comparison, no one yet has anagramed Sarah Palin?
anal parish
Okay, but let’s be fair 20% is 1/5th, and 5% has a five in it, so she may have gotten the numbers confused.
Not that that’s encouraging…
As far as other differences with W.,
Has she ever managed a professional ball team?
Took the words right out of my keyboard.
It is not her lack of Ivy League credentials. It is 6 colleges in 5 years credentials that compares unfavorably. If you place stock in education she is not close. She was mayor of a village and ran it like a vindictive martinet. She was petty and tyranical. She brings nothing.
If we allowed presidents to have three terms and this was a Palin vs. Bush election, not only would I consider Bush the lesser of two evils, I would actually drag myself down to the polling station, hold my nose, and vote for him.
Dang. I was gonna link to that. Here’s today’s editorial which reflects most of my opinion much better than I could say it.
And here’s a column by “Sarah Palin” in this week’s The Stranger. (“What’s the difference between Van Halen and Aerosmith? Van Halen have pit-bull lipstick around the bases of their wangs!”)
Except for the ideological relationship with Neo-Conservatives that served with her Father during his Presidency and Vice Presidency, being the son of an East Coast power-elite Father who was a Congressman, CIA Director, Vice President and President.
Except for the personal connection to Texas oilmen, and an Ivy League education that culminated in a membership in the Skull and Bones Fraternity.
No…she’s not just like George Bush.
She’s like what George Bush’s fake persona was striving to make people believe he was like.*
George W. Bush was very charismatic. Charisma is about getting people to do what you want by force of personality, not about making people give you the googly eyes of adoration. George W. Bush was one of the most charismatic Presidents we’ve ever had. He got by on almost entirely charisma.
*And quite successful I might add. He convinced you.
A plan, sir? Ha!
A hip, a snarl.
Las piranha.
An alpha sir.
Anal rips? Ah.
His anal? Par.
Liar! Ah, snap!
Iran has pal.
No. She is a brainless religious-right ideologue with a pretty face. IOW, Sarah Palin is basically a female Dan Quayle.
Waitaminnit, now. George W. Bush is no Ronald Reagan. He never got anything by the force of his own personality, only by those of his allies and backers and handlers.