Sarah Palin: Don’t Vote For Someone Who Doesn’t Have A Record

For some reason I found this exchange from last night’s O”Reilly Factor highly, highly amusing:

Perhaps we should apply that to certain former Alaskan Governors.

FILED UNDER: Politicians, Quick Takes, Sarah Palin, US Politics
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010 and contributed a staggering 16,483 posts before his retirement in January 2020.

Comments

  1. Simon says:

    How is that amusing? She did have a record. You may sneer that it was only Alaska and it wasn’t even a full term, but she had more executive experience than Obama, Biden, and McCain put together. If we’re going to apply it to former Alaskan governors, let’s apply it even-handedly.

  2. Bryan Pick says:

    Yeah… “someone who doesn’t have a record” includes a number of the candidates she’s endorsed…

  3. Gary says:

    Mr. Mataconis,

    It’s interesting to follow your Palin derangement. Just how long has she been living rent free in your head?

    You need to move further outside the beltway.

  4. Martin says:

    Mr Mataconis,

    Perhaps you misunderstood Palin, She doesn’t mean have a record as an ‘elite’.
    She’s referring to having either actual executive experience or a record of taking positions on issues via votes unlike our President who breezed through voting present most of the time.

  5. Dave Schuler says:

    One thing you can definitely say about long-term prominent Illinois politicians is that they have records. Generally, prison records.

  6. Rob in Denver says:

    “… our President who breezed through voting present most of the time.”

    If by “most of the time” you mean “.03 percent of the time in the Illinois senate and zero percent of the time in the US senate,” then, yes, you are correct.

  7. Janis Gore says:

    David Vitter robocalled my home so many times asking “humbly” for my vote that I voted Libertarian.

  8. mantis says:

    If by “most of the time” you mean “.03 percent of the time in the Illinois senate and zero percent of the time in the US senate,” then, yes, you are correct.

    Funny how they all internalize completely factless bullshit and repeat it at every opportunity, isn’t it?

  9. Martin says:

    Here’s the President’s senate voting record

    http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/

    Read and reconcile your fantastic math.

  10. mantis says:

    Read and reconcile your fantastic math.

    Not a single “present” vote on there. Of course, you’re linking to his US Senate voting record. You can’t vote “present” in the US Senate, unlike the Illinois State Senate.

    So, you claim he voted “present” most of the time, and to support that contention you link to zero “present” votes. What did you think you were proving with that, exactly?

  11. Rob in Denver says:

    Not voting ≠ Voting Present… never mind that middle school civics instructs us that a “Present” vote is not an option for US senators.

    To your larger point, though, he was running for president for a while so I’ll concede some ground here. But not much. The truth is the math — fantastic as it is — tells me that you’re not even close to “most” even when it comes to “Not voting.” In the 110th Congress, the president cast votes in 53.7 percent of the roll calls (352/655, source: http://wapo.st/aqab3l). In the 109th, it was 98.3 percent (634/645, source: http://wapo.st/9KnORG). Even factoring in a presidential campaign, he managed to enter a vote 76 percent of the time

    Regardless of how you choose to convince yourself of your certainty, my point stands: saying he “breezed through voting present most of the time” is patently, demonstrably false.