You’ve made the classic error that is common when looking at legislators. The so-called “experience” you saw with the Republican legislators would be a liability in a general election.
How many senators have ever been elected president? Ignoring 2008, which was a choice between two bad senators, how many senators in the 20th century have been elected President? The answer is only two. Both were considered horrible Presidents, and they died in office. Kennedy won election only through the vote of the House of Representatives.
The reason why Senators never win a presidential election (even though they keep running) is because legislative experience is very different than having executive experience. What you saw today, PhiKapMom, was the details orientated legislative way. This type of ‘knowledge’ is an anathema to the executive.
As the saying goes, if a presidential candidate finds out the bumper sticker was printed wrong, the guy with past executive experience would delegate someone to solve it. The senator with legislative experience would personally go down to the bumper sticker shop and fix it himself.
Obama being a radical is just one of the problems with him. Obama only having legislative experience is a big reason why he is failing all over the place.
Note that every President who has had “legislative experience” has always been considered a poor President.
Palin definitely doesn’t belong at that summit. She is not a legislator. She is an executive. Executives do not pore over the details of bills. Executives are about the ‘why’. Legislators are about the ‘how’.
I never thought of that. I get it now. Where do you think CEO's fit? Executives? Cause we've got two running here in Cali, Whitman and Fiorina, and I'm not voting for either of them, or Mitt Romney either. They seem like negotiators to me, not leaders.
Yeah you put into few words what I failed to articulate--but even still. I think the summit would have benefitted from Palin's presence and her style. A few hours would have been saved and lots of spin cut.
Plus she wouldn't have let the Dems get away with all the personal, emotional sobfest stories. As a mother with a disabled child, who has visible stake in how the debate affects Americans PERSONALLY, Palin would have translated the bill's implications in bare-bones terms that the average voter can understand.
I would have imagined she'd attack the Obama/Reid/Pelosi agenda in a more head-on way, that would have made for some good soundbytes, while being very gracious.
Honestly there is no point in this summit. All this talk about CBO stats and insurance premiums only CLOUDS the real debate going on in this country: Socialism vs. Freedom. The debate needed to be framed as one on principle and philosophy. The Dems don't care about healthcare legislation, they just want to set the foundations for Socialism. That's ALL this is about--and I wish more people would be bold enough to frame it this way and while challenging the Dems to fess up face to face.