[QUOTE=Prime95;140377]The Presidency is an executive position. It can be argued that experience as a governor is more relevant than experience as a legislator.[/QUOTE]
The president is specifically tasked with upholding the law - I hope you`re not arguing that Paley has any significant background in law, and especially in how laws are made in Washington.


[QUOTE]I stand by my statement. They've both been in politics since 96/97. She has more executive experience, Obama has more national experience. I'm not saying Obama isn't qualified, I'm saying Palin is about as qualified as he is. This is precisely why I don't think you'll see many attacks from the Obama camp that she isn't qualified.[/QUOTE]
So you're saying roughly that

[Councilmember in City of pop. 9000] = [IL State Legislature]

and

[2 years as governor of AK] = [4 years in the U.S. Senate].

The first is simply laughable, and the 2nd is a stretch. And I believe that the Obama/Biden campaign will indeed hammer her on the experience factor, and by implication use McCain's choice of running mate to question his judgment.


[QUOTE=rogue;140378]I will admit that I haven't read every post in this thread.

I did discover this [URL="http://www.ontheissues.org/Sarah_Palin.htm"]page[/URL] that describes Sarah Palin's stance on many issues, although detail is lacking for most. [URL="http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Joe_Biden.htm"]Joe Biden[/URL]'s stances have much more detail. I haven't read everything (since there is so much), but I strongly disagree with him WRT Social Security. The general gist I gather is that he likes to spend money and he likes big government.[/QUOTE]
...In radical contrast to our current leadership, eh?

[QUOTE]I would like to find a fiscal conservative who is socially progressive. Is there such a person?[/QUOTE]
A few years ago I might have put in the name of Schwarzenegger, but CA's current budget crisis belies the fiscal conservative part. Like most latter-day Republicans, "fiscal conservatism" to Arnie appears to mean paying lip service to the Republican ideal of "smaller government" and "cutting waste" while in fact doing quite the opposite, and then compounding the problem by cutting taxes.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;140379]So you're saying roughly that

[Councilmember in City of pop. 9000] = [IL State Legislature]

and

[2 years as governor of AK] = [4 years in the U.S. Senate].[/QUOTE]

I guess that all depends on how much the person accomplished in the State Legislature and U.S. Senate. By my reckoning, Obama accomplished less than most. So, yes, I still stand by my statement that they have roughly the same amount of experience.

[QUOTE=philmoore;135280]... McCain will pick Charlie Crist as his running mate to ensure that he carries Florida.[/QUOTE]

This prediction was the worst - off by 4 or 5 thousand miles.

[QUOTE=rogue;140378]
I would like to find a fiscal conservative who is socially progressive. Is there such a person?[/QUOTE]

Jesse Ventura - but he is not-at-all presidential, using over-the-top, blustery macho language. I frequently wonder how well someone like him would do in a presidential race. Despite his foolish bravado, I would probably vote for him...

[QUOTE=ewmayer;140379]The first is simply laughable, and the 2nd is a stretch. And I believe that the Obama/Biden campaign will indeed hammer her on the experience factor, and by implication use McCain's choice of running mate to question his judgment.[/QUOTE]

I doubt that they will try to hammer her, because Obama lacks experience as well. Then again, I do expect McCain to go after Obama's lack of experience.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;140379]...In radical contrast to our current leadership, eh?[/quote]

No, I did not intend to compare him to our current leadership, just that I would prefer fiscal conservatism. Clearly we did not get that with Bush. Unfortunately, Clinton had a great opportunity when the budgets were in the black to address the national debt, but he and congress decided to spend it.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;140379]A few years ago I might have put in the name of Schwarzenegger, but CA's current budget crisis belies the fiscal conservative part. Like most latter-day Republicans, "fiscal conservatism" to Arnie appears to mean paying lip service to the Republican ideal of "smaller government" and "cutting waste" while in fact doing quite the opposite, and then compounding the problem by cutting taxes.[/QUOTE]

I think that the wrong approach to cutting waste is to presume that reducing the dollars given today will result in savings tomorrow. Is there any part of government that views cost cutting as an opportunity to become more efficient? Probably not. It is probably why the DOD spends $500 for a hammer and why the government has warehouses full of computer equipment (less than a couple of years old) sitting unused. If some sectors of government were forced to work like a business instead of relying on the gravy train of taxes, costs of many services would drop dramatically and I suspect that the quality of service would go up significantly.

As a software engineer, I get very annoyed at the multi-million dollar cost overruns associated with rewriting antiquated software. Some of those projects eventually get scrapped because they can't get the funding to complete. If I were to tell my customers that they must pay double for software after they have given me well-defined requirements, I would be out of business quickly. Sadly, that doesn't happen in government. Don't even get me started on how few of the government computer systems can talk to one another...

[QUOTE=masser;140384]Jesse Ventura - but he is not-at-all presidential, using over-the-top, blustery macho language. I frequently wonder how well someone like him would do in a presidential race. Despite his foolish bravado, I would probably vote for him...[/QUOTE]

Due to the track record of most presidential candidates during my voting lifetime, I have voted independent in half of the elections. I haven't seen significant differences between Democrats and Republicans on spending. They are different on taxes, but they both spend the same amount of money.

[quote=rogue;140378]I would like to find a fiscal conservative who is socially progressive. Is there such a person?[/quote]John Anderson, presidential candidate in 1980

From [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Anderson[/URL]:

[quote]Initially, Anderson was amongst the most conservative members of the Republican caucus.

. . .

As he continued to serve, Anderson's positions on social issues shifted to the left, though his fiscal philosophy remained largely conservative.

. . .

Anderson's political drift began to unsettle some of his conservative constituents.

. . .

1980 Presidential campaign

. . .

Most of Anderson's original support came from Rockefeller Republicans who were more liberal than Reagan, but it bled away. Many prominent intellectuals, including the author and activist [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gore_Vidal"]Gore Vidal[/URL] and the editors of the liberal magazine [I][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Republic"]The New Republic[/URL][/I], also endorsed the Anderson campaign.

. . .

His poll numbers kept falling, attributable in large part to a campaign pledge regarding the cornerstone of his proposed economic policy, which was to enact, if elected, a 50 cent per gallon gasoline tax, and in an era of high gas prices and fuel shortages, this did not resonate very well with voters.

. . .

In January 2008, Anderson indicated strong support for the candidacy of fellow Illinoisan, Democratic contender [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama"]Barack Obama[/URL].[/quote]However, I suppose you want someone more contemporary, someone you might actually get to vote for. :-)

[quote=rogue;140378]I would like to find a fiscal conservative who is socially progressive. Is there such a person?[/quote]I think who you are looking for is libertarians. As far a I can tell their motto is "do whatever you want as long as it's not with [I]my[/I] money."

[QUOTE=tallguy;140447]I think who you are looking for is libertarians. As far a I can tell their motto is "do whatever you want as long as it's not with [I]my[/I] money."[/QUOTE]

I don't view Libertarians and socially progressive. Maybe someone here can correct me.

[quote=rogue;140453]I don't view Libertarians and socially progressive. Maybe someone here can correct me.[/quote]I can see what you mean. I would reckon "progressive" can take two basic approaches towards improving the status quo:

1) keep your morals to yourself (avoidance of government intervention in those areas)

2) make everything "fair" and "just" (desirous of government intervention in those areas)

Libertarians would generally support #1, but certainly not #2.

[quote=rogue]Unfortunately, Clinton had a great opportunity when the budgets were in the black to address the national debt, but he and congress decided to spend it.[/quote]

Not true. Clinton had actually started the process towards paying of national debt. And you have to remember that when he came into office the budget was a sea of red ink. Just bringing it back in black was a major achievement just like it will be for the next president if he manages to achieve it.