Pailin worse than Quayle?

Palin is worse than Quayle in the sense that Palin is running for election, and Quayle isn’t. If it were anybody else, they’d be worse, just like McCain will be “worse than Bush!!!” six months after election (if he is elected, which seems unlikely).

McCain is running against him.

Regards,
Shodan

Sorry but no. Comparing Palin to Obama? That’s a joke.

Only if they claimed they were of Olympic stature but had refused to actually compete.

Quayle was a lightweight, but he could have told you what papers he read, and he seemed to be a nice guy. Palin is ignorant and vicious, and I think her supposed intelligence is yet to be demonstrated.

Wrong. McCain ran against him in the primaries eight years ago

From Wikipedia:

Quayle worked on the Armed Services Committe, the Budget Committe, and the Labor and Resources Committe. He co-authored a worker’s bill with Ted Kennedy.

Dan Quayle was not the most qualified person ever for the job of VP, but in many ways he was more qualified than Obama is (I am a fervent Obama supporter). But he is in a different universe compared to Palin.

Key.

Quayle was ridiculed for what was, in actuality, a very good answer to the question of what would he do if suddenly thrust into the Presidency: he said that he’s gather up his top advisers and listen to their advice. Good answer. He knew enough to know how little he knew. Knowing that he could have actually handled the job in a pinch.

Palin thinks she knows all that she needs to while knowing in truth very little indeed. Ignorragance - that combination of ignorance and arrogance - is a most dangerous thing indeed.

As educated as Quayle may have been, the office of VP was as much about ceremony and being an understudy to the Prez as anything else. Cheney changed that, and Palin thinks Cheney didn’t go far enough (at the very least, she agrees that the office of VP is “flexible”–I believe that’s the term she used).

She seems to be dangerous, and not above kneecapping her opponents, metaphorically at least, to get what she wants.

Quayle “knew his place” so to speak.

So Palin is by far worse.

If I recall correctly, the first time he was asked the question, he fumbled the answer. It was on subsequent occasions he gave the answer you described.

DSeid said what I was going to. Palin’s combination of ignorance and arrogance (and confidence) is what frightens me about her. And after eight years of an embarrasing president, we don’t want to risk Winky rising to that level and digging us deeper.

Palin has a witch doctor pastor, she has no original thoughts pertinent to governing the nation, she’s been found guilty of abuse of power, and she’s a flat-out liar. I’d say she’s a lot scarier than Quayle.

I think this sums it up pretty damn well. She also appears to be a Fundy at heart and supports intelligent design and creationism. Anti-science is pretty damn scary to me at least.

He was a horrible VP but a different type. Going in Agnew was no inexperienced light-weight. He was a skilled and experience politician. I would compare him to Cheney instead. Cheney and Agnew are corrupt, nasty crooks but they are far from light-weights and as chosen running mates they had yet to reveal the depths of their depravity.

Sorry Shodan you picked the wrong poster for your little rant. I have gone out of my way to post that despite planning to vote for Obama I voted for McCain in the primary as the best of the Republicans and I have posted for years about how I thought he could beat Hillary in ’08. I protest when people post he is as bad as Bush and I post about how for once we have two good candidates running. I am also one of the steadier defenders of Reagan on this board. The idea of Palin worse than Quayle did not come from one of the steady lefties, but from a moderate independent. If you like her fine, but don’t make this a liberal smear issue. I also actually like Papa Bush, I just did not like his VP at all.

Jim

No one considered Qualyle to be unqualified in the 1988 election, as far as I can recall. (I voted for Bush/Quayle, by the way.)
You might want to check your talking points fax. Some of the ones you are using have expired.

I agree with you, Jim, particuarly your last sentence. I think the difference between the two president Bushes is worth discussing, but to avoid a hijack I’ve opened a thread hereabouts.

I am confident the Jamaican’s were better at bobsledding than me, I cannot say Palin would make a better VP than me.

Oh, yes, he was, in the religious-social-conservative sense. That, more than any imagined Kennedyesque air, was why he was chosen for the ticket – GHWB himself not having solid credentials with that base.

Andrew Jackson?

I believe Harding actually said that he didn’t know what he was doing.

Ulysses Grant also comes to mind – excellent general, clueless in running a civil government.

Ford is still good for a chuckle but he was by no means “unprepared,” he’d spent many years in Congress.

W himself wasn’t very well prepared. Unlike Palin he had been governor of a big state, in population as well as area, but in Texas the governor has not much real power.

That would make him honest, a mark for him when compared to Palin.

No cite, but I read once that when Eisenhower was asked what he would do as president, he replied, “They will inform me of my duties.” :confused: