Alaska Republican Governor Sarah Palin, chosen by John McCain as his Vice-Presidential running mate, is a damn good choice. She has a lot to recommend her to everyone except radical leftists, whose numbers are too meager to start out with to make a difference, and who would not vote for a Republican candidate regardless.
Yet, when she ran for governor, it was at the head of a reform ticket. Palin was instrumental in fighting her states powerful US Senator, fellow Republican Ted Stevens, when he appropriated the boondoggle known forevermore as the "Bridge to Nowhere" and has been a crusader for ethics reform in general.
She is a staunch and tireless advocate of developing her states, and the nations, bountiful reserves of oil and natural gas. At the same time, she has been an advocate of legitimate environmental concerns and responsible management. I think she is even publicly on record as on the opposing side of the Exxon Mobil Corporation over the Exxon Valdez Affair.
She is a long standing member of the NRA and a tireless advocate of Second Amendment rights. She is in fact a huntress, and among her favorite dishes is "moose burgers".
The more I look at all of this, the more she reminds me of the lady whose picture adorns the header of this blog, despite the face that she is a Christan, a member of the "Assemblies of God", the same Christian denomination of which John Ashcroft is a member. She is pro-life, but these days that is to me an ever increasingly distant concern anyway, especially seeing as how the "pro-choice" crowd seems to be in favor of almost everything else that I'm against, and against almost everything else that I'm in favor of. And hey, when you stop to think about it, Artemis would probably be pro-life, being the patroness of childbirth. Her brother Apollo in fact inspired the Hippocratic Oath, which in its original form included a vow not to perform abortions.
The only thing I have heard about her so far that gives me enough pause to seriously consider opposing her is the fact that she supports the teaching of "Creationism", or to use the latest euphemism, "Intelligent Design", presumably in public school science classes.
This I find troubling, and I'm sure as time goes on I will discover some other things about her positions that I also find dubious.
Be that as it may, nobody's perfect. She comes awful damn close, though. I might not set this one out after all.
The only problem I can see with her from a tactical standpoint is that it kind of lessens McCain's argument about Obama's lack of experience to choose a running mate who has had less than two years experience as the governor of a state. Prior to that she was a city council woman and then mayor of a very small town of Alaska. Yet, if the ticket wins, she is just a heartbeat away from succeeding to the presidency under a man who just this day turned seventy two years old and who has suffered bouts of melanoma.
Maybe the goddess is manipulating things behind the scenes-or will.
Well, hell, we've put up with Dick "Darth Vader" Cheney for eight years. Sarah "Artemis" Palin would have to be a vast improvement.
21 comments:
Even if its just her position as a mayor for 6 year and her Governorship for the last two, any way you want to dice it up, Sarah Palin has 8 years experience in a executive government leadership position.
Which, by the way, is 8 years of executive experience longer than Barack Obama and Joe Baldspot put together. She's lead a city and a state government. McCain's led a carrier air wing.
And Obama and Biden lead me to laugh.
Say, what's the over / under on the number of "ums" Barack Obama will say when asked for an example of Joe Biden's foreign policy leadership?
Well, if she's hunted moose before, she'll be good for relations with Canada. But, seriously Pagan, if you think that the only people who might have problems with her are radical leftists, then you need to step out of the republican party tank every once in a while. I've already heard from three or four relatives who have problems with her, and they're all republicans.
Shes a developer of Oil and Gas.. Give me a fucking break,, shes FOR drilling in ANWR.. which is so damn stupid.ANWR is SHALE oil, it is a rock..America has NO facilities to refine shale oil meaning it would have to be sent to some place else . Which means we PAY to bring it back ,then make gas with it.. meaning it wont save americans at the pump..Mcain was for Drilling in ANWR then against it, now hes for it again.This guy flip flops worse the John Kerry ever could of. And yes im a radical leftist, But i do not support Obama.. On election day im gonna chuck rotten eggs at the whole lot of em. Palin was picked to bring over the Hillary women..The only ones she will get is the PUMAS .. which i just call them traitors..Mccain is running scared
Drill in ANWAR, Drill in MA, Drill everywhere there is Oil.
Dude your fucking ate up
While she supports oil development, she also sees fit to tax the oil companies & have them pay their fair share to the country that hosts them. That beats the hell out of my congressman (Steve Chabot) who likes to give tax breaks to the oil companies suffering record high profits.
Palin will also take a lot of crap for her past as a beauty queen. I would say that that kind of competition requires a fair bit of diplomacy and politicking.
Still, her speech in Dayton was just dripping with the tone of, maybe not inexperience, but maybe being a fish that just got thrown into a much bigger pond.
Beamish-
Just curious. Did you miss the part where I said I like her?
Rufus-
Of course, most Democrats are going to vote Democratic, as will most liberal leaning independents. What I was getting at was that Palin can help McCain pull away some of those voters. That is especially true of moderate and maybe even some slightly left of center female voters, and other groups as well.
She would be unlikely to pull away any real hard core radical leftists, was my point, but the more I think about it, I might have actually been wrong about that. A lot of really far left types don't really like Obama that much, and actually think the Democrats are detrimental to their cause, more so than Republicans.
Shadowhawk-
That is somewhat a good point about ANWAR being shale oil-I guess-but really, why would we have to send it somewhere else to process it?
If we could allegedly convert a substantial amount of our electrical grid to wind and solar energy, couldn't we as easily develop the capacity to refine shell? Can't we do both? Surely to-well, to Artemis-the US can walk and chew gum at the same time.
You say she's a developer for oil and gas like most people say Charles Manson is a savage killer. Come on. Like it or not, we are going to be dependent on oil for some time to come now. It's a hell of a lot better to develop our own resources than it is to stay dependent to the extent we now are on Saudi Arabia and other such places, ain't it?
Well, I damn sure think it is. The price at the pump and home energy costs are important factors, yes, but even if it doesn't lower the price by so much as one cent there is still the dependency factor to consider. At the very least we should be able to stabilize prices until we can make this transition, which, no matter what anybody says, is probably going to take at least twenty years at a bare minimum.
Beakerkin-I agree with you one hundred percent, with the caveat that there should be a national goal of developing renewable energy sources. The quicker we do that the better, because then we can use oil as a means of propping up the dollar. The more we have left over, and in reserve, the better for that purpose. In fifty years oil will be as valuable as gold, pound for pound-maybe more so.
Quim-I've come to the conclusion that it might be better not to tax the oil companies at all. I'm really divided on the issue. On the one hand, yes, it's needed revenue that's going to the federal government, but on the other hand, the companies just turn right around and pass the tax burden on to us consumers anyway, and the federal government, being the federal government, is just turning right around and wasting the tax revenue anyway.
Currently INSIDE our Lower 48 there are NO facilities that process Shale Oil.. there are only 2 places close enough to process Shale.. 1.is in Northern Canada, and the other larger refinery is Siberia. To build the proper refining facility in america it would take 10 years. Which in the scheme of energy independencemay be to far off. I believe in development of non ethanol based bio fuels, as in cellulosic fibers from non food stuffs such as sugar cane stalks, switch grass, bamboo, and wood pulp from fiberous shrubs and trees, things that are sustainable. There are ways to power our homes an our cars that powerful lobbys who are in the GOP hip pocket dont want to happen. Becaise if they do then who will need what they are Selling. Fuck Joh Mccain and his 7 houses, his 1 million dollar windfall due to the sale of Anheiser-Busch to a Foreign entity.. He can buy a new plabe, but what are the people of St Louis going to do after the new owners restructure and they lose there jobs. Lot of good Mccains doing for America there huh.Mcsame is going to run us into the ground
Shadowhawk-
Even if it took ten years to build a proper refinery, that is still half the time, at the very least, that it would take to make the transition to the renewable energy sources you are talking about. That kind of stuff can't happen overnight either. We need a comprehensive approach, and that by the way includes nuclear. Anybody that takes nuclear energy off the table has no credibility when they discuss energy policy.
Plus, bear in mind there is more than just ANWAR in Alaska. There are trillions of gallons of natural gas reserves which can be used in the transitional phase, and which a good many Democrats also oppose.
Just like a good many of them, still stuck in the seventies, still oppose nuclear. Just like a good lot of them still oppose clean coal gassification-something which would be a great boon to the people of my state, speaking of jobs.
I've even heard some of them oppose geothermal energy, on some ridiculous grounds that people can use it to cause earthquakes or some ridiculous crap like that.
Really, what it amounts to is they oppose anything that doesn't divert billions of dollars into their own damn pockets somehow, in my honest opinion.
Really, how can you expect me to take these guys seriously? They scream and cry about Gorebal Warming, but then the minute somebody comes up with a reasonable plan to phase into this stuff, they balk. Suddenly,the sky isn't falling, it seems. Oh, but it might if we don't do everything exactly their way, and immediately if not sooner? Bullshit.
As for the Anheiser Busch deal, I'm kind of with you there, but that really has nothing to do with McCain. That is a publicly traded company. Unless McCain holds the controlling stock in the company-which I seriously doubt-then his involvement in that deal is no greater than any other major stockholder.
Even at that, I think you're reading too much into this. Yes, they might do a restructuring, and this might involve lay-offs, but American companies do that all the time as well. If there is a perceived need to restructure on the part of the new owners, that was probably coming down the line anyway. That or the company would end up going bankrupt. So, same difference.
If anything it might well be that this Belgian company might be the shot in the arm it needs. They might actually add jobs.
Of course, from what I've heard, Belgians make shitty beer, but that's beside the point.
PT,
I know you like her. I like her too, precisely because she will make this election about everything the Democrats don't want it to be about - substance over symbolism. Ideological coherence over leftist gobble-dee-goop. Democrats want brand loyalty, Republicans want a better product.
THe libertarian conservative wing of the Republican Party, the grassroot footsoldiers of get-out-the-vote, is now resurgent.
The hotfoot Hillary voters for McCain are just icing on the cake. McCain needed to show conservatives they could trust him.
He did that and then some.
Man your nuts. with Mccain its not about substance, its about what he can get away with. Without Palin he cant go after Roe V Wade.With out Palin he cant go after ANWR,.. Tell me this, why do most hillary supporters when polled yesterday resoundingly say NO to voting for Mccain just because of Palin, like i say all you guys are going to get are PUMAS, and they are nothing more than a device planted by Repuhs to divide the Democratic party.... Come back on November 5th and tell me about substance over symnolism.. Lol i wonder how that Senate investigation over her wanting to fire an ex Brother in law from his job as State Trooper will go..You Repigs make laugh
a little tidbit about Ms Palin.. Lol.. shes the worst pick Mccain could have made
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wu6Oqq6NkQI
Shadowhawk-
I haven't verified this personally yet, but from what I've heard, Sarah Palin's brother-in-law threatened to kill her father, and beat her sister.
If a Democratic governor had gone through that shit we'd be hearing out the wazoo about how she was a victim of "domestic violence" and "abuse" and how we need to educate the public about this dastardly problem.
Now that a Republican female governor has evidently gone through the same thing they ordinarily howl and bleat to the heavens about, these same Democratic operatives are more than happy to throw her under the bus.
Well, I will now respond in kind. I have officially tossed the Roe v Wade crowd under the bus. I'm sick of their shit. They hijack every judiciary hearing on Capitol Hill.
The next time they have a hearing to appoint a Supreme Court Justice or a federal judge, watch Ted Kennedy and his other Democratic brethren. At least half-half at the very least-of every goddamn question they ask every prospective jurist revolves around fucking Roe versus Wade. WTF? Is it all right if we consider other issues every now and then? Is that all the fuck they think about?
Then let's look at the kinds of judges these bastards insist on appointing. The very same judges that want to uphold Roe versus Wade vote on the wrong side of gun control and the Second Amendment. They vote on the wrong side of the death penalty, in my opinion. They vote on the wrong side of just about every damn thing you want to mention, from energy policy to national sovereignty issues, to state sovereignty issues.
Some of them have even expressed the opinion that we should sign onto the International Court of Justice. You may believe in all those things, and if you do, fine, that's your right.
But, I do not believe in them, so why should I worry about appointing judges that will uphold Roe versus Wade when I know what their judicial philosophy is in all these other areas. It doesn't make any sense.
Part of the reason that I became so conservative over the last couple of years, in fact the main reason, you can put down to my just paying attention to what these bastards do or try to do with the courts.
Sorry, but a judge that tells me he wants to view the Constitution as a "living document" that should "grow and evolve with the times" is pretty much telling me, as far as I'm concerned, that as a matter of convenience the constitution can mean any goddamn thing you want it to mean at any given time.
I just ain't going for it, and it's going to take a hell of a lot more than a minimum wage increase every ten years or so to make me change my mind. A hell of a lot more. Like, in other words, they can forget about it.
Shadowhawk,
I understand the reason why your panicking. You've backed your Messiah candidate this far, right up until his 11th hour, day-before the convention nomination of a running mate that most people associate with plagiarism, hairplugs, and dropping out of presidential races after getting media criticism or after sharing last place with the guy that wants to ban orbital mind control lasers. You're still caught in the common-enough but still ludicrous world view that premises itself on the absurd idea that leftists are actually capable of rational thought.
Never mind the huge slap in the face your candidate gave to the supporters of one of the most despised womyn in American politics, Hillary Clinton, with the Joe Baldspot nomination. It's bad enough Barack Obama couldn't beat her without throwing out the results of two primaries and other non-democratic means. Party insiders have known all along Hillary Clinton would lose against John McCain slightly worse than Barack Obama would.
But that was before Obama chose Biden.
Now you've got the first Democrat candidate in a long time polling worse post-convention than they did before their own convention, facing a Republican candidate that has just fired up the conservative base of the party in an election where the Democrat-controlled Congress currently holds the lowest approval rating in American history.
"Had enough?" LOL!
Hopefully, with this impending election loss, Democrats will discard leftism and bring Republicans in 2012 candidates it takes more effort to defeat than straining to hold back a blink.
Then again, probably not.
I mean, already you've got "She tried to fire a rogue cop that tasered a kid and threatened violence against his wife" vs. "He thought the guy that blew up bombs at the Pentagon and Capitol was cool as hell."
I smell fear on you.
This is another example of know nothings. The people of the area are
in favor of drilling. A person who has never lived in the area is going to trump the rights of the locals.
Let the locals decide.
Drill away
This whole move by McCain screamed, "I'm jealous of all the firsts in the democratic party this election."
Beak-
If you're talking about ANWAR, I agree with you, but the problem is, the ANWAR is on federal land.
Danielle-
This whole move by McCain screamed, "I'm jealous of all the firsts in the democratic party this election."
Huh? What firsts? Aside from nominating a black man, all I've seen and heard is the same old Democratic Party claptrap.
As far as the black candidate thing goes, they even ruined that by insinuating-hell, by actually coming straight out and saying it in the case of the Kentucky, West Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania primaries-that you are racist if you don't support him. Talk about "the more things change the more they stay the same"-wow!
Let's see now, what other "firsts" have we got here?
Well, okay, Obama picked a decent running mate, which I concede that's the first time a Democratic presidential candidate has done that in a while, but really.
All these "firsts" seem to have escaped my notice somehow. Care to elaborate?
Wait a minute, I have one. They "allowed" a pro-life Democrat to speak at the convention. Of course he didn't talk about pro-life versus pro-choice issues, but hey-they did "allow" him get up on stage and say howdy to the folks.
Anything else?
Pagan
The elitist mindlessness is familiar
to one who lived in VT. People who
moved into the area decided to tell locals who have been hunting for generations to stop.
Let the locals in Alaska decide how land should be developed.
Beak-
"The elitist mindlessness is familiar
to one who lived in VT. People who
moved into the area decided to tell locals who have been hunting for generations to stop."
Just out of curiosity, how many of the motherfuckers vanished and were never heard from again?
They pulled the same crap in Kentucky with bear hunting, or tried to. One guy killed a bear that actually broke into his cabin and they threatened to prosecute him, even though he was in a life threatening situation, and he was also protecting his dog to boot. I never found out how that case turned out. It was just like suddenly, you never heard it mentioned again.
John McCain and Sarah Palin are out chasing a hurricane.
Barack Obama is dodging his Weather Underground buddies.
Joe Biden is fogging up a mirror chanting "I am somebody! I am somebody!"
Let the post-Labor Day smack talking begin!
Danielle,
Obama was the first Democratic candidate to not benefit in polling from his nomination convention.
Post a Comment