Qualification? He didn't need no stinking Qualifications!
November 20th 2009 14:39
Sarah Palin is doing the talk show circuit these days, as her book, "Going Rogue" tops the best seller lists all over the place. In a promo on O'Reilly, he asks her if she thinks she's ready to be president. We'll hear her answer tonight.
I remember when the campaign was going on and the liberals pounced on her lack of "experience" and "qualifications" while ignoring the fact that B.O. (B.S.) had no qualifications or experience whatsoever. That's still going on, you know.
Plenty of presidents went from being governors to the White House. Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton just to name three. Funny, but I don't recall their opponents having never run so much as a lemon-aid stand calling those former governors "inexperienced or unqualified", do you?
And the matter of "eloquence" is front and center, of course. As long as he has his trusty tele-prompter and someone else's words, B.O. (B.S.) can fake "eloquence" beautifully. If he has to speak off the cuff, he makes a fool of himself at every turn.
Sarah Palin can speak for herself, without reading canned answers, and the truth comes through to those who are smart enough to listen. The difference is that she knows what she thinks and where she stands. B.O. (B.S.) doesn't have a clue (that's why his "beliefs" and priorities change with every group he addresses).
I got an email from a liberal friend of mine a few days ago. It was clearly either written by a liberal moron or it was a joke. Hard to tell which... The writer couldn't spell Pelosi, didn't have much of a grip on grammar, and sounded really silly in the effort to bash Sarah while making Nasty Pelosi look good. But that's typical of liberal foolishness, isn't it? Proudly displaying their own ignorance while calling someone else a "dumbhead".
I remember when the campaign was going on and the liberals pounced on her lack of "experience" and "qualifications" while ignoring the fact that B.O. (B.S.) had no qualifications or experience whatsoever. That's still going on, you know.
Plenty of presidents went from being governors to the White House. Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton just to name three. Funny, but I don't recall their opponents having never run so much as a lemon-aid stand calling those former governors "inexperienced or unqualified", do you?
And the matter of "eloquence" is front and center, of course. As long as he has his trusty tele-prompter and someone else's words, B.O. (B.S.) can fake "eloquence" beautifully. If he has to speak off the cuff, he makes a fool of himself at every turn.
Sarah Palin can speak for herself, without reading canned answers, and the truth comes through to those who are smart enough to listen. The difference is that she knows what she thinks and where she stands. B.O. (B.S.) doesn't have a clue (that's why his "beliefs" and priorities change with every group he addresses).
I got an email from a liberal friend of mine a few days ago. It was clearly either written by a liberal moron or it was a joke. Hard to tell which... The writer couldn't spell Pelosi, didn't have much of a grip on grammar, and sounded really silly in the effort to bash Sarah while making Nasty Pelosi look good. But that's typical of liberal foolishness, isn't it? Proudly displaying their own ignorance while calling someone else a "dumbhead".
| 37 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Lester Caudill
Round Politics
Sarah is ten times more qualified than Obama to be president, at least she can make up her mind, and is a true patriot, not just some socialist wanting to fundamentally change American.
People should listen when he says fundamentally change America, we all agree that American is great her foundation is strong her past is great a shinning light to the world. Why would we want to fundamentally change that?
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief