Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Palin Suggests Obama Unqualified
Time ^

Posted on 10/03/2008 9:37:01 AM PDT by Chet 99

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061 next last
To: BigBobber
Gov. Palin on a live news show this morning hitting more home runs by calling out Barry as dangerous. McCain’s people have finally figured out how to use their greatest asset.

The Drive-Bys are all thinking to themselves "This can't be! Katie exposed her as an idiot!!"

41 posted on 10/04/2008 9:04:23 AM PDT by COBOL2Java (Obama wants to raise taxes and kill babies; Palin wants to raise babies and kill taxes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
Meanwhile I think Palin would listen to her advisors/generals....

Would she?

42 posted on 10/04/2008 9:34:59 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
Ummmm hypocrat Jimmuh Cahtuh disqualified himself by the very fact he was a hypocrat...and history vindicates this. We’re still paying decades later for his failed liberal ideas.

We're paying for having an unqualified man in the White House at a critical time. I'm not anxious to see us make the same mistake twice.

We have to choose a president/vp from these four people...

I'm aware of that. But that doesn't magically give Palin the background and experience that makes one qualified to be president. I shudder to think of what might happen if either Obama or Palin were in the Oval Office at a time of crisis. I hope McCain wins, I plan on voting for him, and should he win I plan to pray very hard for his continued health and well-being.

43 posted on 10/04/2008 9:38:15 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Meanwhile I think Palin would listen to her advisors/generals....

Would she?


I don’t see any evidence to make me believe she wouldn’t, do you?


44 posted on 10/04/2008 11:19:46 AM PDT by tpanther (All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
I don’t see any evidence to make me believe she wouldn’t, do you?

Palin's history as mayor and governor seems to be hiring and firing staff based on loyalty rather than competence. Would she be different as president?

45 posted on 10/04/2008 4:32:21 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Palin’s history as mayor and governor seems to be hiring and firing staff based on loyalty rather than competence.


I’d like to see such evidence.


46 posted on 10/04/2008 6:27:09 PM PDT by tpanther (All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
I’d like to see such evidence.

When she took over as mayor she fired the police chief and the head librarian, and the reason she gave was that they didn't fully support her. Both had supported her opponent in the election. Similar situation when she became mayor.

47 posted on 10/05/2008 4:25:51 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Palin's history as mayor and governor seems to be hiring and firing staff based on loyalty rather than competence.

It's her right as head of her respective government to hire and fire at will. They work for her. I haven't seen any evidence that those firings were based on "loyalty" as you put it. Perhaps you buy into the mainstream media's definition of "loyalty". Bottom line is if they're not doing their jobs to her satisfaction, she has every right to fire them. Period.

Come to think of it, President Bush should have done some firings based on "loyalty" - there's hundreds of Clintonites still hanging around in the various departments that work for the executive branch. Many of those Clintonites have severely disrupted his ability to do his job (ignoring the fact that he's a bit on the liberal side himself).

48 posted on 10/05/2008 4:57:29 AM PDT by meyer (Go, Sarah, Go!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: meyer
It's her right as head of her respective government to hire and fire at will. They work for her. I haven't seen any evidence that those firings were based on "loyalty" as you put it. Perhaps you buy into the mainstream media's definition of "loyalty". Bottom line is if they're not doing their jobs to her satisfaction, she has every right to fire them. Period.

There is no doubt that Palin was within her rights to fire anyone she wanted. Department heads held their positions at the pleasure of the mayor and could be dismissed for any reason at all. But Palin upon entering office, Palin fired the head of the police and the library. Two people who had held their jobs for years under the prior administration without any indication that they weren't doing their jobs. But both had supported her opponents. When loyalty takes precedence over competence then I think that raises some eyebrows.

Come to think of it, President Bush should have done some firings based on "loyalty" - there's hundreds of Clintonites still hanging around in the various departments that work for the executive branch.

For example?

49 posted on 10/05/2008 5:09:53 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
There is no doubt that Palin was within her rights to fire anyone she wanted. Department heads held their positions at the pleasure of the mayor and could be dismissed for any reason at all. But Palin upon entering office, Palin fired the head of the police and the library. Two people who had held their jobs for years under the prior administration without any indication that they weren't doing their jobs. But both had supported her opponents. When loyalty takes precedence over competence then I think that raises some eyebrows.

First, what definition of "loyalty" are you using in your accusations? Second, show me the evidence that Palin fired people due to their alleged loyalty. I think you're making empty accusations here. If you have a case, prove it.

For example?

The state department is chock full of Clinton leftovers. You'd have to be blind not to see that. It's been discussed on this forum time and time again, since Bush took office in 2001.

50 posted on 10/05/2008 5:51:16 AM PDT by meyer (Go, Sarah, Go!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

the police chief...well we know what happened there with troopergate, and it’s not for reasons you suggest. At all.

And she rehired the librarian.

Can’t make sense of your last sentence unless you meant governor, but again, there’s literllay no proof.


51 posted on 10/05/2008 6:16:57 AM PDT by tpanther (All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
the police chief...well we know what happened there with troopergate, and it’s not for reasons you suggest. At all.

Wrong police chief. This was the chief of the Wasilla police. A man who had been with the Anchorage police for 22 years before taking charge of the Wasilla police force when it was founded in 1993 and running it until Palin decided he wasn't loyal.

And she rehired the librarian.

After firing her. For disloyalty.

52 posted on 10/05/2008 2:40:49 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: meyer
The state department is chock full of Clinton leftovers. You'd have to be blind not to see that. It's been discussed on this forum time and time again, since Bush took office in 2001.

Name a few.

53 posted on 10/05/2008 2:41:33 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Name a few.

Do a search - I'm not your secretary.

54 posted on 10/05/2008 3:06:03 PM PDT by meyer (Go, Sarah, Go!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: meyer
Do a search - I'm not your secretary.

Don't know of any, huh? I figured that.

55 posted on 10/05/2008 3:08:14 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Name a few.

Easily, 90% of the career Foreign Service officers in the State Department are going to be liberals. Joe Wilson is a very good example of the breed.

The other 10% might be conservatives -- but they'll be closet conservatives.

Even if 100% of the Assistant, Deputy and Deputy Assistant Secretaries were Bush appointees (even partisan Bush appointees), the Department of State would still be a liberal institution.

56 posted on 10/05/2008 3:18:12 PM PDT by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance on Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: okie01
Easily, 90% of the career Foreign Service officers in the State Department are going to be liberals. Joe Wilson is a very good example of the breed.

And what, exactly, could Bush do about those? They're civil service and not political appointments. Bush cannot legally fire them, much as you would like. As far as the State Department political appointments go, I defy you to name a single Clinton appointee that survived the first month of Bush's first term. Can you do that.

57 posted on 10/05/2008 3:23:11 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Not knowing the details, assuming it’s true, that’s 2 people who may well indeed have been fired for “not being loyal”, whatever that means, out of hundreds perhaps thousands of employees.

OK.


58 posted on 10/05/2008 5:17:08 PM PDT by tpanther (All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
And what, exactly, could Bush do about those?

Absolutely nothing. Did I suggest he could?

I defy you to name a single Clinton appointee that survived the first month of Bush's first term. Can you do that.

Did I, at any point, address this question? Don't see that I did.

59 posted on 10/05/2008 5:42:28 PM PDT by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance on Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: LibertyRocks

Bump.


60 posted on 10/06/2008 2:23:48 AM PDT by nw_arizona_granny ( http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/1990507/posts?page=451 SURVIVAL, RECIPES, GARDENS, & INFO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson