The pundits leaning on the right side of the fence just can't understand why so many of us just don't get the fact that Palin is drenched in "experience." Mayor of a little bitty town in the wilds of Alaska, and 20 months as governor - well, hell - that's a lot of experience.
George Will wrote that "John McCain's opponent is by far the least experienced person to receive a presidential nomination ... "
Of course, he offers not a scintilla of evidence to back up that statement. He suggests it might have something to do with age - maybe age brings "experience." And we admit that McCain has lived longer than any of the other candidates currently running for Prez and V Prez.
But there's "experience" and there's "experience." No one has bothered to take note of that fact so far as I can tell. It might be claimed that George W. Bush had lots of executive "experience," and there would be some truth in that.
But it wasn't "good" experience. George W. Bush failed at every single thing he tried to do before he was elevated to political office! Furthermore, when governor of Texas, he saw fit to screw that state up almost as badly as he's screwed up the United States! To paraphrase one pundit who wrote recently - George W. Bush is the worst executive we've ever had in the Oval Office.
Some "experience" we can toss as it is bad "experience" and the one experiencing it didn't learn a damn thing.
It's sad to see these Republicans running about as if casting a net for butterflies trying to somehow portray Palin as "experienced." When the smoke clears, the fact remains- she has little or no experience, and what she's had has not been a learning experience.
Here's just one example: the Washington Post has revealed that Ms. Palin and hubby, Todd, owned part of a business that was shut down by the state of Alaska because it failed to follow state law.
"State records show the business ran into trouble with Alaska's division of corporations business and professional licensing after Palin became governor of the state in 2006.
"A Feb. 11, 2007 letter to the governor's business partner advises that the car wash had 'not filed its biennial report and/or paid its biennial fees,' which were more than a year overdue.
"The warning letter was written on state letterhead, which carried Palin's name at the top, next to the state seal.
"On April 3, 2007, the state went further and issued a 'certificate of involuntary dissolution' because of the car wash's failure to file its report and pay state licensing fees."
But there's more. And this speaks to her integrity. "A review of Palin's gubernatorial disclosure filings indicates that she failed to report her stake in the company on the form that requires candidates for governor to disclose any interest in a nonpublicly traded company."
And more. "Palin's gubernatorial disclosure filings also reveal her involvement in another failed startup -- a marketing business which was to go by the name Rouge Cou, which evidently is a literal French translation of 'red neck.' On the 2005 form, Palin describes the firm as one for which she secured a license but did not conduct any business."
What might we conclude from all this? It certain raises questions about her integrity. It also indicates she's had some "executive experience" running a car wash, but failed. There are people who might blame the "partner" or her husband, but that does not absolve her in the least as executives are always responsible for what their cohorts are doing or not doing.
Did McCain know about this or did his "vetters" miss this, too?