My dear fellow Dems (and Obama strategists if you are listening).
I believe the constant talk of Palin's lack of government experience is a Trojan Horse for us.
A friendly suggestion: let's drop the talk about her experience now!
Why? Well, for some Dems who were along for the Clinton/Obama primary fight, this might seem like a natural line of attack; However - and I'm only speaking for myself - "experience" has never a deciding factor in my decision.
Even though I vowed to support the nominee, no matter who it was, Obama's relatively little Washington experience was actually a plus in my book.
I have never based my presidential decision on the person's resume: I have (as I believe most voters do) based my decisions on the kind of leader and person the candidate is.
In fact, the more experience they have, the more likely I would be to look for someone else to support: voters want to see fresh and new faces. The more we hammer away at her lack of experience, the more we emphasize her "outsider" status... this only works in her favor!
The presidency is not based on a person's resume (even though you can legitimately say "it should be.") No, the person who wins the presidency is the candidate who connects with the voters and inspires them.
So, turn this around and look at it from the Republican perspective: Palin's lack of a Washington resume is as appealing to them as Obama's relative freshness is to many of us.
Are you following me so far?
Furthermore, when we hammer the notion of "experience" being the reason voters should not support Palin, the more we undermine our own candidate, who also does not have many years of Washington experience.
It is working against us, and distracting everyone else from more beneficial lines of advance.
On the experience issue, I think the best thing we can do is let the Republicans fight amongst themselves about Palin's level of experience. This issue is more relevant to their *internal* party politics, than it is to us. They will fight about this issue amongst themselves without our help.
In the meantime, here's what I think we SHOULD focus on: Sarah Palin is *just-like-George-Bush*.
- She is the governor of an oil rich state, just like Bush was Governor of Texas; therefore she will approach Energy policy from the perspective of the Oil and Gas industry.
- She is hardcore evangelical Christian who believes the government should align with her own personal values, rather than reflecting the diverse values of our nation.
- She governs not with nuance, but with brash and bold pronouncements. She will be just like Bush in her foreign policy: all stick and no carrot.
...and finally, the biggest whopper of all:
- Palin believes she is above the law: if she is willing to ignore subpoenas for something as trivial as "Troopergate," how do you think she will deal with much more serious matters?
Governor Palin has only been on the ticket for a few weeks, and already she's abusing he power and refusing to work with her other legitimately-elected counterparts in State government.
This shows us how she will deal with Congress, and the other branches or our federal government. This also shows us how protective she is when it comes to matters of personal job performance and judgment.
We can see from this example, she is the opposite of the REFORM and TRANSPARENCY she claims herself to be.
Just like Bush in 2000 said: I am "compassionate conservative," will not engage in "nation building," believe in a "humble foreign policy," and will "limit greehouse gases" (yes he said all those things), so to with Governor Palin. She says she will be a reformer, but her actions show her to be more of the same.
The problem with Palin, therefore, is not that she is inexperienced: its that she is just like George Bush.
So rather than focusing on the "experience" issue, I suggest you spread the word that we focus on this instead:
We cannot afford another George Bush in the Whitehouse, and that is exactly what Sarah Palin is.
What's the difference between Sarah Palin and George Bush? LIPSTICK.
I believe the constant talk of Palin's lack of government experience is a Trojan Horse for us.
A friendly suggestion: let's drop the talk about her experience now!
Why? Well, for some Dems who were along for the Clinton/Obama primary fight, this might seem like a natural line of attack; However - and I'm only speaking for myself - "experience" has never a deciding factor in my decision.
Even though I vowed to support the nominee, no matter who it was, Obama's relatively little Washington experience was actually a plus in my book.
I have never based my presidential decision on the person's resume: I have (as I believe most voters do) based my decisions on the kind of leader and person the candidate is.
In fact, the more experience they have, the more likely I would be to look for someone else to support: voters want to see fresh and new faces. The more we hammer away at her lack of experience, the more we emphasize her "outsider" status... this only works in her favor!
The presidency is not based on a person's resume (even though you can legitimately say "it should be.") No, the person who wins the presidency is the candidate who connects with the voters and inspires them.
So, turn this around and look at it from the Republican perspective: Palin's lack of a Washington resume is as appealing to them as Obama's relative freshness is to many of us.
Are you following me so far?
Furthermore, when we hammer the notion of "experience" being the reason voters should not support Palin, the more we undermine our own candidate, who also does not have many years of Washington experience.
It is working against us, and distracting everyone else from more beneficial lines of advance.
On the experience issue, I think the best thing we can do is let the Republicans fight amongst themselves about Palin's level of experience. This issue is more relevant to their *internal* party politics, than it is to us. They will fight about this issue amongst themselves without our help.
In the meantime, here's what I think we SHOULD focus on: Sarah Palin is *just-like-George-Bush*.
- She is the governor of an oil rich state, just like Bush was Governor of Texas; therefore she will approach Energy policy from the perspective of the Oil and Gas industry.
- She is hardcore evangelical Christian who believes the government should align with her own personal values, rather than reflecting the diverse values of our nation.
- She governs not with nuance, but with brash and bold pronouncements. She will be just like Bush in her foreign policy: all stick and no carrot.
...and finally, the biggest whopper of all:
- Palin believes she is above the law: if she is willing to ignore subpoenas for something as trivial as "Troopergate," how do you think she will deal with much more serious matters?
Governor Palin has only been on the ticket for a few weeks, and already she's abusing he power and refusing to work with her other legitimately-elected counterparts in State government.
This shows us how she will deal with Congress, and the other branches or our federal government. This also shows us how protective she is when it comes to matters of personal job performance and judgment.
We can see from this example, she is the opposite of the REFORM and TRANSPARENCY she claims herself to be.
Just like Bush in 2000 said: I am "compassionate conservative," will not engage in "nation building," believe in a "humble foreign policy," and will "limit greehouse gases" (yes he said all those things), so to with Governor Palin. She says she will be a reformer, but her actions show her to be more of the same.
The problem with Palin, therefore, is not that she is inexperienced: its that she is just like George Bush.
So rather than focusing on the "experience" issue, I suggest you spread the word that we focus on this instead:
We cannot afford another George Bush in the Whitehouse, and that is exactly what Sarah Palin is.
What's the difference between Sarah Palin and George Bush? LIPSTICK.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment