"CalifBill" wrote in message
m...



I like the pick. May not have been the best, but was a very good pick.
We have had too many of the lots of government experience over the last 40
years. Look what it has got us. More of the same, and excess debt. At
least Palin is a fiscal conservative. May be a social conservative, but
did sign the bill for equal benefits for domestic partners in AK. So she
has common sense. The fact that the people of AK love her, says a lot.
Large state, small population that takes politics very seriously. Look at
the POTUS who have done fairly well over the last 60 years. Truman. Ran
a failed haberdashery. Ike. Was a General. but generals are very
politically savvy. Kennedy did not accomplish much as he let a short
career, but did get us going to space and probably would not have had Viet
Nam enlarged like LBJ did. Clinton was lucky, as he had a huge increase
in Revenue from the dod.bomb, but did not cause as much trouble as an
inexperienced POTUS would do under your reasoning. And he surrounded
himself with some crab advisors. Got us into the Balkans. Bad decision,
and killed a bunch of soldiers in Somalia from lack of experience and
support. Palin seems to be a fast learner and has common sense which is
very lacking in DC. Romy might have been a better pick for experience,
but did not enhance the ticket.


You guys might be right. We'll watch, listen and see.

I admit to being a bit in awe of anyone who has the intestinal fortitude,
confidence and necessary ego to *want* to be POTUS. The inertia of politics
is so great that it takes years to effect significant change in terms of
internal social and economic programs. In a way, it's to our advantage
because the nation can afford an occasional screw-up and survive.

The global scene and interaction with other nations is a bit more real time
and demands much more difficult and timely decisions.

Eisboch