A few of your points aren't entirely correct. She does not think creationism should be taught as course material, but would like for discussion to not be stifled if it comes up in classrooms. She is on record as saying she will not support the implementation of and faith-based curriculum, and has kept that promise for the years she's been in office.
She also does have some international expeience if you consider trade and production deals with Canada to be international. She got a $27 billion dollar natural gas pipeline-"the largest public project in the history of our country"-that had been held up for 30 years underway by giving the contract to Canadians. Against the objections of the oil companies and Republicans.
She is pro-gun, but inclusion of fully automatic weapons into the discussion is unfair, as those have been restricted since 1968. It is still possible to acquire them, but they are extremely expensive and require extensive federal background checks.
She will only help his position as a cross-party maverick. She has a (short) history of bipartisan politics and taking her job seriously. She stomped on the RNP to get the pipeline through and she vetoed a bill to prevent benefits for same-sex state employees.
Thanks for the clarification of her take on creationism, I actually have no problem with discussing both, I just have a HUGE issue with teaching both, so it's good to hear that she is not supporting faith based curriculum, that scare same a bit less.
Working with Canada *is* international experience (redhotlips would kill me if I joked that was really more of an interstate commerce issue ;)), but nowhere near the level of international experience required for juggling Russia, Israel, Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and potentially Iran. Does it raise it from the 0 I gave her above, yeah, but not in the way that makes me likely to be impressed. At least Obama knows where those places are on the map has been to a number of them, and been on the senate floor for discussions of what is happening in them.
Honestly, what I've picked up about her is that she is rabidly pro-gun, and as such, is the type of person who would prefer to have no controls on weapons (*please* if you have proof otherwise tell me, I hate being wrong when I haven't been able to find something on my own), which makes my point still stand.
I mentioned the benefits bill above, and *she said* that the only reason she vetoed it is that the Alaskan supreme court had (I forgot now which) just ruled such a law unconstitutional, or had said it would, or something to that effect. She did it because she knew it would be overturned. Hardly a sign of bipartisanship.
She is anti-corruption, and that is DEFINITELY a positive in her favor, but it is not one that I consider a partisan decision. Ideally ALL politicians should fight corruption, no matter where it is. As far as her stance on every single other issue that I am aware of however, she is ALL republican. There is no maverick in her. She cleans up house, and that's great, but she still does so with a republican broom. There's no maverick bipartisanship there.
She also does have some international expeience if you consider trade and production deals with Canada to be international. She got a $27 billion dollar natural gas pipeline-"the largest public project in the history of our country"-that had been held up for 30 years underway by giving the contract to Canadians. Against the objections of the oil companies and Republicans.
She is pro-gun, but inclusion of fully automatic weapons into the discussion is unfair, as those have been restricted since 1968. It is still possible to acquire them, but they are extremely expensive and require extensive federal background checks.
She will only help his position as a cross-party maverick. She has a (short) history of bipartisan politics and taking her job seriously. She stomped on the RNP to get the pipeline through and she vetoed a bill to prevent benefits for same-sex state employees.
Reply
Working with Canada *is* international experience (redhotlips would kill me if I joked that was really more of an interstate commerce issue ;)), but nowhere near the level of international experience required for juggling Russia, Israel, Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and potentially Iran. Does it raise it from the 0 I gave her above, yeah, but not in the way that makes me likely to be impressed. At least Obama knows where those places are on the map has been to a number of them, and been on the senate floor for discussions of what is happening in them.
Honestly, what I've picked up about her is that she is rabidly pro-gun, and as such, is the type of person who would prefer to have no controls on weapons (*please* if you have proof otherwise tell me, I hate being wrong when I haven't been able to find something on my own), which makes my point still stand.
I mentioned the benefits bill above, and *she said* that the only reason she vetoed it is that the Alaskan supreme court had (I forgot now which) just ruled such a law unconstitutional, or had said it would, or something to that effect. She did it because she knew it would be overturned. Hardly a sign of bipartisanship.
She is anti-corruption, and that is DEFINITELY a positive in her favor, but it is not one that I consider a partisan decision. Ideally ALL politicians should fight corruption, no matter where it is. As far as her stance on every single other issue that I am aware of however, she is ALL republican. There is no maverick in her. She cleans up house, and that's great, but she still does so with a republican broom. There's no maverick bipartisanship there.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment