|
The trap is that if we question her experience, we bring the topic that experience is important, and then they say that their candidate has 10 times the experience that ours does (for President....because that's the race that matters.)
People don't vote for VP, they vote for President. People thought Quayle was an abysmal pick and Bush still won, because people picked Bush over Dukakis.
If we question her experience we keep that topic alive and that doesn't help us. It's much better to just skip that part and talk about what her qualifications actually are and how that colors McCain.
She's an anti-choice, creationist who is anti-science, anti-environment, heck she's even anti-polar bear. She's against universal health care, she's not even good at her job and left her town in massive debt from being Mayor and even the people in Alaska think she's incompetent and corrupt, and the only reason she's doing at all well there is that oil prices skyrocketed and it helped her keep her budget balanced because of it and provide more payola to the people of alaska. She has no foreign affairs experience other than being governor of a state that is 'near' other countries and being in charge of a national guard unit for 18 months (which conservatives said was not good experience when Clinton ran for office the first time).
Whether she has 18 months, or 18 years of experience, her record is abysmal and one that we don't want to elevate to the VP slot, and one that shows McCain's horrendous and overly political judgement.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
