George Will Says Palin Won't Be Prez

[houndawg]

Good read on this by Will. Palin has plenty of positives that keeps her in the news and for many people, she is extremely genuine and likeable. With that said, she just doesn't have the tools to 1) succcessfully navigate a Presidential Campaign and 2) just would be in over her head if she somehow summoned a miracle and won a Presidential election.

She works as a populist voice, but that only gets you so far. I don't see any way that she ends up as a nominee.

Dubya was proof that being in over your head won't automatically keep you from getting appointed President. Hell, Sarah might be a little on the simple side, but, really, how could she screw things up any worse he did?

[ngineer]

I consider myself a 'moderate liberal' (plus 4 on the 0-20 spectrum test you can take) and I find Will to be one of the best political writers of our time. While conservative, he is balanced in his approach and true to real conservative principles which too many get, somehow, mashed together with the far right fascist tendencies we read about. Wanting to go to war is not a 'conservative' principle in any way. Indeed, the true conservative will not engage in war except for defensive reasons. The 'nation building' tack of the neo-cons is downright dangerous, yet many paint people like Dick Cheney as 'conservative', which I don't accept. A true conservative, such as Will has tremendous respect for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights--ALL of them, including the Fourth and Eighth Amendments. Those of Cheney's ilk would scuttle those protections against an abusive government in a blink of an eye if they could. I fully agree with Will in his assessment of Palin. For the Republicans to nominate her in 2012 would be disaster for the party.

[OL FU]

I consider myself a 'moderate liberal' (plus 4 on the 0-20 spectrum test you can take) and I find Will to be one of the best political writers of our time. While conservative, he is balanced in his approach and true to real conservative principles which too many get, somehow, mashed together with the far right fascist tendencies we read about. Wanting to go to war is not a 'conservative' principle in any way. Indeed, the true conservative will not engage in war except for defensive reasons. The 'nation building' tack of the neo-cons is downright dangerous, yet many paint people like Dick Cheney as 'conservative', which I don't accept. A true conservative, such as Will has tremendous respect for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights--ALL of them, including the Fourth and Eighth Amendments. Those of Cheney's ilk would scuttle those protections against an abusive government in a blink of an eye if they could. I fully agree with Will in his assessment of Palin. For the Republicans to nominate her in 2012 would be disaster for the party.

Very good summary, not only of Will but also many things people have forgotten about true conservatism.

[Pwns]

1) She had never been a judge--which, in and of itself, is not necessarily a disqualification, but if you're going to be one of the top nine judges in the country, one would logically expect those nine to have "prior experience."


2) She had to amend her answers to the Senate because, apparently, she couldn't: understand the questions, forgot the past, or "misremembered" (thank you Roger Clemens). Being able to handle mundane details are quite essential to be on the SCOTUS.

3) Saying she is unqualified doesn't mean she's not qualified to be an attorney (though for a while she wasn't allowed to practice in Texas). Her best "qualification" for the job was being a Bush crony. If she were so qualified, why was she a paper jockey in the White House?

4) Clearly she was unqualified, or she wouldn't have withdrawn her nomination. If she were qualified, she could have beaten enough of the concerns to get confirmed. From the moment Bush tapped her, and we heard her speak, anyone with a brain could tell she didn't have the legal intellect to warrant serving on the SCOTUS. I was in law school at the time, her answers to questions and writings were about as good as a first year law student's.

If you (not you specifically, in general) questioned the qualifications of Sotomayor, then there's no way you could conclude that Miers was qualified. Sotomayor was vastly more qualified than Miers.

Do you have a good reason as to why she was qualified?[/quote]

As far as I'm concerned it actually takes more intellect to be a lawyer than it does to be a SCOTUS judge. These days the constitution can say whatever the hell people in power want it to say and rulings are just. The idea of a SCOTUS judge is an umpire who must understand the intricacies of the strike zone is laughable. If the people on the SCOTUS are so brilliant then how the f%^& did a ruling like Kelo v. City of New London ever come about? The Supreme Court's credibility in the minds of sensible Americans should have been destroyed forever after that ruling. As far as I'm concerned Peewee Herman and Barney the Dinosaur would be just as good.

[ASUMountaineer]

1) She had never been a judge--which, in and of itself, is not necessarily a disqualification, but if you're going to be one of the top nine judges in the country, one would logically expect those nine to have "prior experience."


2) She had to amend her answers to the Senate because, apparently, she couldn't: understand the questions, forgot the past, or "misremembered" (thank you Roger Clemens). Being able to handle mundane details are quite essential to be on the SCOTUS.

3) Saying she is unqualified doesn't mean she's not qualified to be an attorney (though for a while she wasn't allowed to practice in Texas). Her best "qualification" for the job was being a Bush crony. If she were so qualified, why was she a paper jockey in the White House?

4) Clearly she was unqualified, or she wouldn't have withdrawn her nomination. If she were qualified, she could have beaten enough of the concerns to get confirmed. From the moment Bush tapped her, and we heard her speak, anyone with a brain could tell she didn't have the legal intellect to warrant serving on the SCOTUS. I was in law school at the time, her answers to questions and writings were about as good as a first year law student's.

If you (not you specifically, in general) questioned the qualifications of Sotomayor, then there's no way you could conclude that Miers was qualified. Sotomayor was vastly more qualified than Miers.

Do you have a good reason as to why she was qualified?

As far as I'm concerned it actually takes more intellect to be a lawyer than it does to be a SCOTUS judge.
These days the constitution can say whatever the hell people in power want it to say and rulings are just. The idea of a SCOTUS judge is an umpire who must understand the intricacies of the strike zone is laughable. If the people on the SCOTUS are so brilliant then how the f%^& did a ruling like Kelo v. City of New London ever come about? The Supreme Court's credibility in the minds of sensible Americans should have been destroyed forever after that ruling. As far as I'm concerned Peewee Herman and Barney the Dinosaur would be just as good.

Ok, nice answer. Completely subjective and void of any criteria--not to mention it does nothing to address the question YOU POSED to me. Unfortunately, for your argument, your opinion on qualifications were not sought after.

I never said the SCOTUS judges were brilliant people, don't let your biases get in the way of a sound argument. However, I did say one of the qualifications should be legal intellect, which she lacked. The credibility of the court is not what you asked me about. I'm responding to your question about in what ways Miers was unqualified. I'll take your lack of rebuttal of those reasons as your inability to offer why the reasons I listed don't prove she lacked adequate qualifications.

Now, why don't you give a good reason as to why she was qualified (you know, the original question you posed), as opposed to rambling about and bashing SCOTUS judges...which is irrelevant to Miers' qualifications. Unless, of course, that's all you've got.

[Rob Iola]

Good read on this by Will. Palin has plenty of positives that keeps her in the news and for many people, she is extremely genuine and likeable. With that said, she just doesn't have the tools to 1) succcessfully navigate a Presidential Campaign and 2) just would be in over her head if she somehow summoned a miracle and won a Presidential election.

She works as a populist voice, but that only gets you so far. I don't see any way that she ends up as a nominee.

Dubya was proof that being in over your head won't automatically keep you from getting appointed President. Hell, Sarah might be a little on the simple side, but, really, how could she screw things up any worse he did?

By emulating Obama?

[houndawg]

Dubya was proof that being in over your head won't automatically keep you from getting appointed President. Hell, Sarah might be a little on the simple side, but, really, how could she screw things up any worse he did?

By emulating Obama?

Not even then.

[Pwns]

Ok, nice answer. Completely subjective and void of any criteria--not to mention it does nothing to address the question YOU POSED to me. Unfortunately, for your argument, your opinion on qualifications were not sought after.

I never said the SCOTUS judges were brilliant people, don't let your biases get in the way of a sound argument. However, I did say one of the qualifications should be legal intellect, which she lacked. The credibility of the court is not what you asked me about. I'm responding to your question about in what ways Miers was unqualified. I'll take your lack of rebuttal of those reasons as your inability to offer why the reasons I listed don't prove she lacked adequate qualifications.

Now, why don't you give a good reason as to why she was qualified (you know, the original question you posed), as opposed to rambling about and bashing SCOTUS judges...which is irrelevant to Miers' qualifications. Unless, of course, that's all you've got.

The prestigious law-firm that she became the president of did not think she had no legal aptitude. Neither did big corporations like Disney and Microsoft that hired her. She got prestigious private sector positions that are earned by actual merit...not just getting appointed by a politician and sitting on the bench for years - like Sotomayor who you think is more qualified. Miers bio is equally (if not more) impressive in terms of what she had to do when you don't have all of the privileges and immunities that judges in our country have.

And you know what I said in my last post is true, so why would you define being qualified for the SCOTUS in such a way?

[bulldog10jw]

But Dubya was A LOT smarter than Al Gore or John Kerry

Who gives a sh*t.

Obviously....you!

[Col Hogan]

I consider myself a 'moderate liberal' (plus 4 on the 0-20 spectrum test you can take) and I find Will to be one of the best political writers of our time. While conservative, he is balanced in his approach and true to real conservative principles which too many get, somehow, mashed together with the far right fascist tendencies we read about. Wanting to go to war is not a 'conservative' principle in any way. Indeed, the true conservative will not engage in war except for defensive reasons. The 'nation building' tack of the neo-cons is downright dangerous, yet many paint people like Dick Cheney as 'conservative', which I don't accept. A true conservative, such as Will has tremendous respect for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights--ALL of them, including the Fourth and Eighth Amendments. Those of Cheney's ilk would scuttle those protections against an abusive government in a blink of an eye if they could. I fully agree with Will in his assessment of Palin. For the Republicans to nominate her in 2012 would be disaster for the party.

Spot on for every point...

[ASUMountaineer]

Ok, nice answer. Completely subjective and void of any criteria--not to mention it does nothing to address the question YOU POSED to me. Unfortunately, for your argument, your opinion on qualifications were not sought after.

I never said the SCOTUS judges were brilliant people, don't let your biases get in the way of a sound argument. However, I did say one of the qualifications should be legal intellect, which she lacked. The credibility of the court is not what you asked me about. I'm responding to your question about in what ways Miers was unqualified. I'll take your lack of rebuttal of those reasons as your inability to offer why the reasons I listed don't prove she lacked adequate qualifications.

Now, why don't you give a good reason as to why she was qualified (you know, the original question you posed), as opposed to rambling about and bashing SCOTUS judges...which is irrelevant to Miers' qualifications. Unless, of course, that's all you've got.

The prestigious law-firm that she became the president of did not think she had no legal aptitude. Neither did big corporations like Disney and Microsoft that hired her. She got prestigious private sector positions that are earned by actual merit...not just getting appointed by a politician and sitting on the bench for years - like Sotomayor who you think is more qualified. Miers bio is equally (if not more) impressive in terms of what she had to do when you don't have all of the privileges and immunities that judges in our country have.

And you know what I said in my last post is true, so why would you define being qualified for the SCOTUS in such a way?

Your last post did nothing to state qualifications, or why Miers was qualified.

Great, Miers worked for big law firms and companies (I'm sure her political connections didn't help her at all in landing those positions). Her bio included zero job experience in being a judge, unlike Sotomayor. I am no fan of Sotomayor's, but at least she had actual job experience. You know, that basis on which most people in the private sector (where, as you say, you earn actual merit) are hired.

Of course, I'm not sure why we're discussing it, this has to be one of the most irrelevant discussions ever. What with the Miers nomination happening in 2005. But, it is fun to discuss.