Sarah Palin...

[stevis78]

It's 2008, election year....I'm back...I will be more brash than ever in defending my beliefs and the people who share them.  Don't like it?  Sorry.  OK, now that that's out of the way...

The terrible personal attacks against Sarah Palin just show what the feminist movement is all about.  It's not about feminism.  It's the face of a much larger

Comments

[gratsisgr8]

As you've stated it, I agree it's benign -- I used that more as an example of HOW far right she is, and I just have a problem with that the same way I have a problem with people in power being too far left. I just have a hard time seeing how that benefits the greater public, but that might be my inexperience of looking at politics.

As for that... yeah, I still have a problem with it. Extensive networking or not, how can you nominate someone to run with you when you barely know them? That is what seems to grate me so much and make this smack of gimmick. They don't want this to be an issue of sexism, but I just can't believe that they made this move without looking at her sex and using it as a tactical move. Again, I don't know much about politics, but I can't believe that there wasn't anyone else in the entire Republican party that didn't have better qualifications all around. Ultimately, that's what gets my goat -- and maybe *I'm* being close-minded, but I can't seem to break that thought.

If that's the truth re: her executive experience, then that's great. I guess my question then is what kind of executive experience? And, will that executive experience be of use to her if/when she's faced with national and international issues? It's a great thing that the pop. of Wasilla has doubled to 10k since she's been in office there, but we're not talking about making decisions for 10k people. And that's not to suggest that someone else would be better simply because they've made decisions for a town of 1mil, but... meh.

As for Biden, I agree. I was a little peeved when I saw that nomination. (I would have loved an Obama/Hillary ticket as much as the next but 1. they had to fight each other too hard, and 2. they'd lose all the corporate white male votes by running a ticket with a black man and woman ;P. *sarcasm intended*) The argument I have understood, however, is that Biden carries the international experience that Obama has been so heavily criticized for not having. So Obama answers the questions about his experience with that and McCain answers what questions by bringing in Palin? That's what perplexes me.

I guess the thing is that with this election, everyone will be able to find flawed logic and arguments in most things that either party says. But the Palin thing?... I'm just having a really hard time with it. The more I read about her the more I feel like she's a tactical pawn whose staunch belief system just makes me squeemish. :\

[nighthawkal]

When it comes to picking a VP, I think that there is a lot of grey area as to whom is the best to be #2. There are so many people you could go with depending on what you are looking for. If you're a Senator, you might want a Governor from a swing state who isn't a "Washington Insider". If you're a Governor, you may want someone who is a Washington Insider. Sometimes people pick someone from a swing state. Sometimes they pick someone to balance the ticket on an area they are weak on or a demographic they are weak on.

Seeing her speech last night, it looks like she is effective and knows what she is doing and what she is talking about. I wish she was a second term governor, but it looks like she has done a pretty good job in her first term by doing things like cutting wasteful spending.

[gratsisgr8]

By the way, you're discussing with someone who doesn't know much about politics and the political environment, because it's just out of my area of interest. This election has gotten my attention more than most, and the Palin thing has become sticky because I've been reading and seeing things from a wide variety of sources that make me scratch my head.

That said, the reasoning for picking a Veep isn't something I'm knowledgable about. That's why I asked.

As for the speech... One speech doesn't cut anything for me. That could mean she's a great public speaker, and her background in sports reporting doesn't help that cause. It's the same thing about Obama -- people think he's charismatic, but I don't care how well you talk, I want to know what their stances are on certain issues. So far I have seen reports that in her first term she has both cut wasteful spending AND increased it, and she's wasted a lot of time looking for funding that borders on pork-barrelling. She can be a fantastic speaker, but if she's just as underhanded as the next guy, I'm skeptical.

(Which, I guess is the major problem... I'm skeptical of all of them. She just happens to have my radar on high-alert.)

[nighthawkal]

I see. I hope I didn't sound like a schmuck saying that. I think it was late when I wrote it.

I believe she cut $500 million in earmarks out of the budget in Alaska and made a lot of members of the state legislature mad that she cut their pork projects. You have to consider that when you're Mayor or Governor, you're trying to do whatever is best for the place you're representing. You're going to try to get as much money as you can so you can do more and try to claim it. If she's Governor, she is probably going to try to get as much money for her state as she can because at that point, she is responsible for Alaska and has to do whatever she can to make Alaska better. But if she is President or Vice President, she's going to be thinking from a point of view of trying to help the whole country since she is responsible for the whole country as opposed to a state. At any job, any person is going to try to lobby to make their department get as much funding and resources as possible so their departments looks like the best and is the most successful, but if they get moved to another department, they're going to try to make that department the most successful and get resources for that dept.

As for comparing her to Obama. Obama has been a state legislator for 7 years and a Senator for 3. I think he has only sponsored two pieces of legislation in the Senate and one of them was to name a post office. I can't remember the other one at the top of my head. As a state Senator, Obama voted "Present" 132 times! He didn't even bother to give a "yes" or "no" answer on these bills. As President, he is going to have to give "yes or "no" answers on a regular basis. He can't just say, "I'm Here!" Gov. Palin was a mayor of a city for 6 years, was in charge of Alaska's Department of Oil and Gas (can't remember the exact name) where she outted corrupt people and got them fined, and quit soon after because she couldn't stand the corruption in that dept. As Governor, she has done alot of the same things and cleaned house there.

As for McCain, I think everyone knows that he is an accomplished Senator with a reputation for going against his party and President when he disagrees with them and he works with Democrats when he thinks they have a good idea.

[stevis78]

As far as getting to know someone before bringing them aboard, this is why McCain has advisers. He did know her to some extent and certainly knew of her in his time in the US Senate and her time as governor. He only knew Mitt Romney, the VP front-runner (thank DOG he didn't get it) from debates. Same with Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, and even Charlie Crist. It was a virtual certainty he was going to hire someone he hadn't known that long. This is just a small example of how things are dealt with by presidential candidates and actual presidents. McCain is only going to be able to do so much. He is going to have to delegate a lot of stuff to others. And that may seem impersonal and that may seem out of touch, but that's the way it has to be. I'd say the Secretary of State pick is even more important in many ways, because they will be sent to talk to people with whom the United States may have had a bad relationship in the past (an example would be Ghadafi in Libya). They'll spend even more time with international allies.

I have no problem with someone with a staunch belief system. It does help as to whether I agree or disagree with the bulk of her opinions. Hillary Clinton has as staunch a belief system as anyone (Hillary was the idealogue and Bill was the politician), but the problem is I don't agree with her and she will try to rewrite the Constitution. She's said many times the Constitution is a "living, breathing document." Effectively, this means taking power away from the states and giving it to Washington. This was never meant to be.

[stevis78]

To clarify: Huckabee he knew from debates. Crist and Jindal he knew from a barbeque they attended at McCain's house in Arizona.

[gratsisgr8]

It was a virtual certainty he was going to hire someone he hadn't known that long.

Fair enough. I can honestly say I don't understand that process, so that clarifies it quite a bit.

Also, I don't have a problem with a staunch belief system -- we all have one. I guess I should say I have a problem when someone in a decision-making position has a staunch, religiously-based belief system that is then imposed upon mass groups of people.

With that said, I guess we can agree to disagree about the Constitution. I am of the belief that it's a living, breathing document as well... but not in the sense that it is meant to take powers away from states and put power into Washington. I think it's living, breathing in terms of interpretation. The founding fathers expressed as much, acknowledging that as time passes, culture changes, science evolves, etc, interpretation is what will keep the document as the foundation of the way the country is run. If it wasn't that way, I can't see how it would have survived, and continues to survive, as it does. Maybe Hillary wants to put more power in Washington, and I'm sure that on a case-by-case basis I would both agree and disagree with the kind of change that needs to be made. I do believe the Constitution is not meant to be read literally, however. :)

[stevis78]

"I do believe the Constitution is not meant to be read literally, however. :)"

I take the Constitution very seriously. Having said that, there is need for clarification in the document--always has been--which is the reason for the Supreme Court. The problem is there are justices over the years who have taken their roles from one where they interpret the Constitution to one where they interpret law.

[gratsisgr8]

Yep. And if you ask me, that is reflective of those who are in office, and those who have had the power to nominate justices when there has been a need for it.

Instead of guidance for this country, the last eight years have smacked of rulership (not dictator, just "ruling"). That's ultimately why I don't want someone like Palin near the White House... because she screams of rulership, and I can't help but feel like we'd have to endure more of the same crap. And, admittedly, I probably have no way to validate or explain why I feel that way, but I do. *shrug*

Anyway, it's been fun, but I am politely ducking out of this conversation. I think I've hit my political discussion threshold for the next month. :P :) Thanks, though! It's been neat to hear other opinions and explanations, and I do appreciate it. :)