Quote:
Originally Posted by TRFrance
If you feel the stat is ridiculous, then please tell us why.
I have no problem being corrected. If you have a more accurate number for us, feel free to share.
Keep in mind, however, it doesnt change the underlying point being made.
-------
(In fairness, I'll say I've also read that 143 may be the number of times the senate met while he was serving as senator, or the number of days he was on the senate floor. The numbers I've seen seem to vary and its not easy to pin down the exact number right now.)
But it doesnt change the underlying point here.... Even if if you make the case that Obama worked more than 143 days in the Senate [which he may indeed have], he has been on the campaign trail almost non-stop since early 2007... Meanwhile Palin, who took over as governor in December 2006, worked a solid 20 months governing Alaska up to the time McCain picked her 2 months ago.
Thus the key argument remains. Palin has spent more time of hands-on governance in her post than Obama has spent in the senate doing his senatorial duties. Thus, in my view, those who try to minimize Palin's experience level, while touting Obama's time of "federal senatorial experience" are kidding themselves.
And of course, as a senator you have 99 other people helping to make decisions. A governor has no such luxury. The level of responsibility and accountability is much greater as a governor.
|
TR, to be honest with you, I almost hate coming here to the election section now because without fail I find myself seemingly happen to "defend" Barack Obama. The truth of the matter is that I cannot stand propaganda, political rhetoric, and some of the blatant dishonesty that seems to be such a part of our political system...not to mention the blind partisanship that I love so much.
If I remember correctly, the US Senate meets well in excess of 100 days per year. Obama is also part of several Senate SubCommittees. In addition to this US Senators are involved in a lot of things during the entire year...particularly the rising or prominent ones. I would no more measure a US Senator's experience in "working days" than I would a pastor's by giving him credit for 2 days worth of experience per week.
At the very least if you are going to measure experience in "working days" you at least have to be consistent. When I clicked the link and saw Obama's experience measured in "working days" and McCain's in total years, I had pretty much seen all I cared to see from that particular source.
For the life of me I don't see where the 143 days comes from. I have read 173 days and I don't know where that comes from either.
The bottom line like I said earlier to Ferd is that during the last measure of voting during the candidacy of Obama, he did vote more than enough to be graded by the Washington Journal and be labeled. It was McCain who did not. The point is that you cannot recognize his voting during the candidacy enough to criticize his votes but not enough to give him credit for working. You cannot both be the most liberal voter in 2007 and be "on the campaign trail almost non-stop since early 2007" and therefore unable to get credit for working and voting.
Threaded Mode
