OptimisticOwl Wrote:

S.A. Owl Wrote:

OptimisticOwl Wrote:so Palin would have years to develop more knowledge and experience than she has now, and what she has now compares favorably to Obama's, IMO.

I have yet to see any evidence to support what you say. A careful look at the things she said in the debate shows that her knowledge and experience are narrow and shallow. Listening to Obama talk (not just "speak"), it's hard to say the same.

It's probably useless for us to debate this point, but I couldn't read this without responding.

Well, I at least said "IMO". I guess we now have YO. They are both just O's.

I think the "O" is understood. If not typing an "IMO" made me seem less civil, I apologize.

Vaguely related to this topic... I read this on Friday and it took me two days to locate it on WSJ.com:

My So-Called Life Span: Expectancy Calculators Falter
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122480811556165069.html

I took two of the calculators and they both came up with much more optimistic results than i had anticipated. Perhaps I should rethink my plan of spending my assets (can't rightly call it my children's inheritance) before Obama gets it instead. I might actually survive the Obama years.

It may be difficult to predict out death rates 50 years into the future (using the articles example of McCain in his 20s), but when you're in your 70s, you can only cheat the grim reaper so long. The maximum age to which one lives isn't increasing that much, though the curve (if you look at survival to a given age) may be shifting to the right (more people surviving to a given age). Better care and all of that, but in the end, there will be a disease (or maybe just old age/degeneration) that catches up in the end. That's why McCain's estimated death rates probably aren't that much different between now and 5 to 10 years from now.

But she is the only one in the race who can field dress a moose.

S.A. Owl Wrote:

OptimisticOwl Wrote:so Palin would have years to develop more knowledge and experience than she has now, and what she has now compares favorably to Obama's, IMO.

I have yet to see any evidence to support what you say. A careful look at the things she said in the debate shows that her knowledge and experience are narrow and shallow. Listening to Obama talk (not just "speak"), it's hard to say the same.

It's probably useless for us to debate this point, but I couldn't read this without responding.

75Owl Wrote:But she is the only one in the race who can field dress a moose.

S.A. Owl Wrote:

OptimisticOwl Wrote:so Palin would have years to develop more knowledge and experience than she has now, and what she has now compares favorably to Obama's, IMO.

I have yet to see any evidence to support what you say. A careful look at the things she said in the debate shows that her knowledge and experience are narrow and shallow. Listening to Obama talk (not just "speak"), it's hard to say the same.

It's probably useless for us to debate this point, but I couldn't read this without responding.

Don't knock until you're tried it - and been successful at it.

I don't think this is important, but it nice to have someone in the race who will do things for herself, rather than 'delegating" them.

That's my opinion, anyway. Others may prefer the "sidewalk supervisor" type.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:

75Owl Wrote:But she is the only one in the race who can field dress a moose.

S.A. Owl Wrote:

OptimisticOwl Wrote:so Palin would have years to develop more knowledge and experience than she has now, and what she has now compares favorably to Obama's, IMO.

I have yet to see any evidence to support what you say. A careful look at the things she said in the debate shows that her knowledge and experience are narrow and shallow. Listening to Obama talk (not just "speak"), it's hard to say the same.

It's probably useless for us to debate this point, but I couldn't read this without responding.

Don't knock until you're tried it - and been successful at it.

I don't think this is important, but it nice to have someone in the race who will do things for herself, rather than 'delegating" them.

That's my opinion, anyway. Others may prefer the "sidewalk supervisor" type.

That's a surprising view. Isn't doing things yourself the opposite of being an executive? I mean, when's the last time a GM executive built a car?

Actually I agree with you. It is better to have someone who has
outdoor skills such as hunting and fishing rather than community organizing skills. I can trust Palin to not want to take our guns away.

The people I talked to when I was in Alaska in May thought she was a pretty good governor.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:

75Owl Wrote:But she is the only one in the race who can field dress a moose.

S.A. Owl Wrote:

OptimisticOwl Wrote:so Palin would have years to develop more knowledge and experience than she has now, and what she has now compares favorably to Obama's, IMO.

I have yet to see any evidence to support what you say. A careful look at the things she said in the debate shows that her knowledge and experience are narrow and shallow. Listening to Obama talk (not just "speak"), it's hard to say the same.

It's probably useless for us to debate this point, but I couldn't read this without responding.

Don't knock until you're tried it - and been successful at it.

I don't think this is important, but it nice to have someone in the race who will do things for herself, rather than 'delegating" them.

That's my opinion, anyway. Others may prefer the "sidewalk supervisor" type.

75Owl Wrote:Actually I agree with you. It is better to have someone who has
outdoor skills such as hunting and fishing rather than community organizing skills. I can trust Palin to not want to take our guns away.

Hmm... Vice Presidents... Hunting... Oh, the sarcastic possibilities are so numerous I just can't pick one!

The difference between an executive and a legislator is pretty clear to me. An executive is responsible for what happens... they get to propose things, and then perhaps veto them... but we ALL know that it is NEVER what was proposed that gets passed. Some differences are minor, some major. A legislator tries to get HIS priorities accomplished in the bill, usually by trading votes. He CAN come up with ideas, but doesn't have to. A legislator is a deal-maker... An executive is responsible for policing (at least somewhat) the deals.

JOwl Wrote:when's the last time a GM executive built a car?

Where does Obama fit into this analogy? Is he the executive or yjr worker? Wait, I know, he is the guy with the "management unfair" sign.

gsloth Wrote:It may be difficult to predict out death rates 50 years into the future (using the articles example of McCain in his 20s), but when you're in your 70s, you can only cheat the grim reaper so long. The maximum age to which one lives isn't increasing that much, though the curve (if you look at survival to a given age) may be shifting to the right (more people surviving to a given age). Better care and all of that, but in the end, there will be a disease (or maybe just old age/degeneration) that catches up in the end. That's why McCain's estimated death rates probably aren't that much different between now and 5 to 10 years from now.

I know there has to be a table for it, but how much did his stay in the Hanoi Hilton take off his lifespan?

WMD Owl Wrote:I know there has to be a table for it, but how much did his stay in the Hanoi Hilton take off his lifespan?

I suspect it's a lot like smoking... the farther you are from it, the less impact it has.

I figure the things that could shorten your life in such a situation are those that are immediate (being shot, injured, illness or infection that kills you in captivity, severe malnutrition), those that are shortlived beyond imprisonment (malnutrition, some longer lasting disease/infection/parasite that is complicated by other post-captivity disease), and those that are longlived. Since I can't think of any that are longlived that are not abated by rehab and proper nutrition in recovery, I tend to discount this. I suppose there could be some long-term wear and tear on vital organs, but it seems that there would be some evidence of that to date. I don't know of such, but I'm not an MD and didn't get to spend 3 hours in a room with 1200 pages of McCain's medical records.

texd Wrote:

WMD Owl Wrote:I know there has to be a table for it, but how much did his stay in the Hanoi Hilton take off his lifespan?

I suspect it's a lot like smoking... the farther you are from it, the less impact it has.

I figure the things that could shorten your life in such a situation are those that are immediate (being shot, injured, illness or infection that kills you in captivity, severe malnutrition), those that are shortlived beyond imprisonment (malnutrition, some longer lasting disease/infection/parasite that is complicated by other post-captivity disease), and those that are longlived. Since I can't think of any that are longlived that are not abated by rehab and proper nutrition in recovery, I tend to discount this. I suppose there could be some long-term wear and tear on vital organs, but it seems that there would be some evidence of that to date. I don't know of such, but I'm not an MD and didn't get to spend 3 hours in a room with 1200 pages of McCain's medical records.

Tex is probably right that we're getting further away from some of the damage, though I'm sure some of it is residual. Shoot, he may live longer from the fact that he was probably on a restricted calorie diet those years and there's at least anecdotal evidence that that can prolong life duration. But let's not argue that here, as the quality of that diet was probably pretty limited, which you would think was a negative.

Another more immediate negative on his longevity was the cancer on his face. So, we go round and round on this one. I think sticking to the actual statistical tables is good enough for now.

Heck, Obama is a former (and current, though probably less frequent - he says he's trying to quit, and we know what that means when we hear that from a friend) smoker, and that's a more immediate threat to his health, particularly if it is a long-standing habit.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:Where does Obama fit into this analogy? Is he the executive or yjr worker? Wait, I know, he is the guy with the "management unfair" sign.

Nowhere (and clever bit about the sign), but that doesn't answer the question. Do you really think understanding how to delegate responsibility is not a good quality in a leader, or were you just saying that because you like her? I think I know where you were coming from WRT moose hunting -- if it's real it demonstrates a groundedness that Bush's brush-cutting photoshoots at his "ranch" tried so hard to convey. Maybe delegation wasn't really the thing you meant to criticize?

I've said several times that one of the most important aspects of a presidency is appointing competent people. The implicit extension is that the president will not micromanage the competent advisors, but instead will delegate responsibility appropriately. This is more important IMO than agreeing with me on a handful of issues.

Gravy Owl Wrote:

OptimisticOwl Wrote:Where does Obama fit into this analogy? Is he the executive or yjr worker? Wait, I know, he is the guy with the "management unfair" sign.

Nowhere (and clever bit about the sign), but that doesn't answer the question. Do you really think understanding how to delegate responsibility is not a good quality in a leader, or were you just saying that because you like her? I think I know where you were coming from WRT moose hunting -- if it's real it demonstrates a groundedness that Bush's brush-cutting photoshoots at his "ranch" tried so hard to convey. Maybe delegation wasn't really the thing you meant to criticize?

I've said several times that one of the most important aspects of a presidency is appointing competent people. The implicit extension is that the president will not micromanage the competent advisors, but instead will delegate responsibility appropriately. This is more important IMO than agreeing with me on a handful of issues.

A civilly asked question, so a civil answer ensues.

Knowing how to do something does not preclude the delegation of that duty, but it does mean that the delegator is better suited to monitor the actions and results of the delegatee. IOW, the oversight is knowledgable, and the ability to recognize and correct poor actions by the delagattee is better. In the example, she could tell someone else to field dress the moose, and if they weren't doing it right, she could and probably would stop the process before it became an uncorrectable mess and either do the job right herself, or delegate it to a better qualified delagatee.

Gov. Palin has been delegating just fine in her jobs as Governor and Mayor. Anyone can delegate, but if someone has actual knowledge of the job delegated and/or experience in monitoring delegated responsibilities, that is a plus, and that is why executive experience is an important plus.

My initial response was more a response to those people who want to denigrate her because she doesn't fit their image of what a president should be. I bet George Washington, Andrew Jackson, and Teddy Rooseveldt could field dress a moose. Obviously, that didn't mean they were unqualified to serve.

It is not a skill that a president or vice-president needs, but it does represent to me a attitude toward doing what is needed that I think would serve a president/vice-president well. If everything is to be done by advisors, where dores the buck stop? (No pun intended)

It just seems elitist to me to denigrate her for being able to do something that most people, including me, cannot do. I guess that denigrates most of the population of Alaska and the West and Midwest. I think her enemies want to present that as her only qualification, but of course that is untrue. It should be irrelevant - it is her enemies who try to make it relevant.

By the same token... not wanting to elect someone because they MIGHT die in office is a weak excuse. That is like a coach NOT playing his best passing QB because he might get hurt and instead changing the offense to a running one to suit the backup. You play your best, and deal with the injury if and when it happens. Now, if you don't believe McCain is the best, then fine... but you aren't voting against him because he's old... you're voting for the guy you agree with more.

Hambone10 Wrote:By the same token... not wanting to elect someone because they MIGHT die in office is a weak excuse. That is like a coach NOT playing his best passing QB because he might get hurt and instead changing the offense to a running one to suit the backup. You play your best, and deal with the injury if and when it happens. Now, if you don't believe McCain is the best, then fine... but you aren't voting against him because he's old... you're voting for the guy you agree with more.

There's a difference between not voting for McCain because he might die and Palin might take over, and not voting for McCain because his choice of Palin as his replacement in the event of his untimely death causes one to question McCain's judgment and/or motivations behind that selection. Many of the newspaper endorsements for Obama cited the latter as a major cause (e.g. the Houston Chronicle), while some seemed more to lean towards the former (e.g. the Anchorage Daily News).

(Not to suggest that you didn't know that, Hambone -- just pointing it out.)

I hear you e.... but that just doesn't sell well with me. I know its what some people say... but I just don't buy it as a real excuse.

McCain picked Palin in an effort to win an election, not to take over should he die. I know you didn't mean that, but it follows naturally from your comment. Failing to do so (win the election) doesn't mean it wasn't worth the try... or that another choice would have succeeded where this one failed.

I believe it is justification for a selection, rather than cause... but that's just me.