hey, if palin wants to represent alaska that's alaska's problem isn't it? my problem with palin was she was going to represent me, and possibly as job one president. huge difference there. kennedy becomes a us senator from ny she won't be #1, she'll be 1 of 100 and may very well grow into the job, but if not the good voters of ny can dump her in less than 24 months. she's going to have to run in '10, and again in '12. that's a gruelling schedule. palin on the other hand would have been vp (and president of the senate) for four years after just a few months of campaigning and she was totally unqualified and disturbingly proud of her ignorance. putting aside executive experience or lack thereof (the entire state of alaska has 33% fewer residents than my county and wasalia has half the population of just 1 of my town's seven wards) you can't compare the two women. but we shall see. we shouldn't get get too carried away on kennedy. congress is filled with legacy members, appointed or otherwise who wouldn't be there if not for their names, including bush's father who himself was the son of a senator. has always been this way. sonny bono's widow mary "won" his house seat in a special election following his death. remember her? she brought us the micky mouse, er sony bono copyright extension act. a republican, she's still there. most of this anti-kennedy chatter is sour grapes from ny challengers or republicans who never seem to complain about thier own party appointments.
- js.
|
21-12-08, 10:56 PM
Similar Threads
Threaded Mode