rockaction
Footballguy
He'll just say yesno and balls the thing up completely, IIRC.
He'll just say yesno and balls the thing up completely, IIRC.
How are you supposed to know where the President of Mexico is at any given time?Was not knowing what/where Aleppo was a deal breaker?
I came in here to post something along the lines of "No, of course this isn't a deal breaker. But boy is there ever a double standard when it comes to this sort of thing -- just ask George W. Bush and Gary Johnson."Was not knowing what/where Aleppo was a deal breaker?
Her executive experience is running a County Attorney's Office of what, 100 persons. Her senate committees are not exactly overwhelming though I have great respect for both forestry and for rulemaking in the senate. Her legislative accomplishments, once one looks past the numbers she touts, are quite minimal. She has done more than I, but is not a compelling candidate as far as I can see. Maybe if she governed her state for a term or two. Of course I have this doubt about most Senators who have not governed before. Others, maybe you, think philosophical bent, political positions and direction are more important. I can't say you are wrong, I just have my doubts about testing someone's administrative and executive skills the first time out of the box on maybe the World's toughest management job.Given the Dems weak field of candidates no. Amy still seem the most level headed and the one I would vote for.
The Presidents of Canada and Guam.I came in here to post something along the lines of "No, of course this isn't a deal breaker. But boy is there ever a double standard when it comes to this sort of thing -- just ask George W. Bush and Gary Johnson."
And so. Nice post.It's worth pointing out that both Bush and Obama had similar moments in their first presidential campaigns. Bush failed a "pop quiz" where he didn't know the leaders of Taiwan, Pakistan, India or Chechnya. Obama was in a debate with Hillary where neither of them seemed to know the name of Russian president Dimitry Medvedev.
Knowing the names of world leaders is to International Relations what knowing the precise dates of famous battles is to History. More generally, it's the contrast of stuff you can look up on Wikipedia versus an understanding of theory.OK, I just realized that I didn't know myself; I thought it was still Pena Nieto. So with that, I would like to announce that I am suspending my campaign for the Democratic nomination. I'm sure you all will be relieved to not have to see my TV ads blanketing your airwaves.
It's worth pointing out that both Bush and Obama had similar moments in their first presidential campaigns. Bush failed a "pop quiz" where he didn't know the leaders of Taiwan, Pakistan, India or Chechnya. Obama was in a debate with Hillary where neither of them seemed to know the name of Russian president Dimitry Medvedev.
As a history major, I heartily endorse this post.Knowing the names of world leaders is to International Relations what knowing the precise dates of famous battles is to History. More generally, it's the contrast of stuff you can look up on Wikipedia versus an understanding of theory.
Fwiw I actually would like to see more of those questions. I don't have a problem with them. I think it's only good to test a candidate's basic knowledge. About Palin I'd grant that when that question was asked she was flying backstage during some campaign event, it wasn't really a time to be able to think and reflect. I know, Palin, but I'm sure if given a moment in a normal sit down she could have done better than stammering and uhuhhuhhh. That to me is fair to call that gotcha/unfair, even if the question was fine the situation was inappropriate.In all seriousness, I get your main point, and in addition to your point, I don't like the "gotcha" style of questioning from a sit-down reporter. It's sort of like what Katie Couric did to Palin and then insisted on upon her journo credentials in the aftermath.
There's a lot that went into it. But not to know who Obrador is when immigration will be front-and-center of the campaign seems stunning.
I think this was the essence of your post, which was a good one, in my opinion.Fwiw I actually would like to see more of those questions. I don't have a problem with them. I think it's only good to test a candidate's basic knowledge.
In order to work with them on our immigration policy. It can't just be one country deciding unless the measures for entering are so drastic as to be unthinkable.Why should we care about Mexico or who their president is for that matter?
and Obama's 57 states remark.I came in here to post something along the lines of "No, of course this isn't a deal breaker. But boy is there ever a double standard when it comes to this sort of thing -- just ask George W. Bush and Gary Johnson."
Your pathetic opinion caught cement shoes by a 4:1 margin.Somebody just told me if that's the deal-breaker my mind was never open.
i'd say that it's a symptom of completely not dealing with the immigration issue.
What say you, or is there a middle ground?
Wasn’t that just him misspeaking? He knows how many States there are. Klob didn’t know and tried to BS her way out of it like it was a community college essay question.and Obama's 57 states remark.
This is an awful odd tone to take. I think you might reconsider it. Or not. But it certainly is a legitimate question.Your pathetic opinion caught cement shoes by a 4:1 margin.
Go away, now.
That’s the opposite of my impression. In the clip I saw, she wasn’t even asked his name; she was just asked if she knew anything about him. Her response was no: she knew that the President of Mexico was the President of Mexico and would be important to work with once she took office, but couldn’t say anything else about him including his name.To be fair, she did seem to know who he was. Just not his name. I’ve forgotten enough names on the spot to be forgiving to others.
I think he's riffing off of my language from the other thread. Klobuchar's thread. But I admit it reads a bit hostile at first blush. Dunno.Maybe edit or delete this
Ok gotcha. I haven’t seen that thread and his post seemed out of the blue.I think he's riffing off of my language from the other thread. Klobuchar's thread. But I admit it reads a bit hostile at first blush. Dunno.
Good point. Thanks for making the distinction.Wasn’t that just him misspeaking? He knows how many States there are. Klob didn’t know and tried to BS her way out of it like it was a community college essay question.
Yeah, I called her performance "pathetic" said her campaign had "cement shoes" and I was "gone" from potentially giving her my vote.Ok gotcha. I haven’t seen that thread and his post seemed out of the blue.
Oh well I agree with your assessment. That lack of preparation and unwillingness to admit it was quite bad.Yeah, I called her performance "pathetic" said her campaign had "cement shoes" and I was "gone" from potentially giving her my vote.
That might be why. But thanks for going with decorum; makes the place have a better look and feel to it.
Yeah, I sort of have to say I didn't personalize those words toward another poster nor was I fulminating, mind you. I was using them as descriptors. I fear our GB Phantom JB got nicked here for not doing the same.Oh well I agree with your assessment. That lack of preparation and unwillingness to admit it was quite bad.
I can't find a transcript and I can't watch the video at work. I thought there was a sentence about USMCA and his election that made me think she knew who he was. Perhaps I'm being a little generous.That’s the opposite of my impression. In the clip I saw, she wasn’t even asked his name; she was just asked if she knew anything about him. Her response was no: she knew that the President of Mexico was the President of Mexico and would be important to work with once she took office, but couldn’t say anything else about him including his name.
This is exactly right IMO. When you spend that much time on the campaign trail in what has to be a constant state of mental fatigue, it's inevitable that you occasionally slip up and say something that sounds dumb when ripped out of context. We should cut people lots of slack over this sort of thing.Wasn’t that just him misspeaking? He knows how many States there are.
The way she spells it involves a stapler to the head. Ask at your own peril.I'm gonna reserve judgement until I hear her try to spell "potato".
I don’t think it’s the getting elected part that we should stress but the work they have done after being elected. My question is:My conclusion is that managing to get elected to a statewide or federal office is not necessarily a good qualification for higher office or even a cabinet position. Sure people will vote for the lesser of two evils in the finals and hope that the lesser evil will be able to guide policy of their choice based on advice of the folks who actually know things, but in the semis it may be best to re-evaluate what we consider to be a valid resume.