Out of the Mouths of Babes
To quote Sarah Palin on nuclear proliferation: "Nuclear weaponry, of course, would be the be-all, end-all of just too many people in too many parts of the world." On why, as governor of Alaska she has the foreign expertise to be a heartbeat away from the presidency: "It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there." You can't invent this kind of comedy.
posted by John M Crowther @ 7:20 AM
14 Comments:
Truth is... none of the candidates has the necessary experience (and/or the wherewithall) to do what's going to be necessary to deliver the country out of the mire. The choice of VP on both sides was based on political expediency and not "what's good for the country". It's now an impossible choice. So glad I don't have to vote... but that doesn't stop me being incredibly fearful of the outcome whichever way it goes.
I share your fears and concerns, Jean. And the fact I have a vote here is scant comfort. I think that rarely has there been an American president ready for the job, especially those on whom the mantle fell in times of difficulty. Who could have known that FDR would lead the country out of the depression? Or that Lincoln could have risen to his challenge? All we can do is look at the myriad pros and cons of each candidate. I myself would rather vote for a highly accomplished Harvard law school grad and law professor than for a jet jock with a history of erratic behavior in times of stress. But Palin is the only one of the four I have absolutely nothing to go on to suggest she is remotely qualified, and plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise. Indeed, McCain's choice of her as running mate is evidence in and of itself that he cares little for the country and its future.
I see your point John... but I rather think that we should (in fairness) apply equal standards to our assessment of all candidates in order to arrive at a more balanced conclusion.
Describing McCain as a jet jock is no different to describing Obama as a radical muslim or Palin as a pit bull in lipstick. Everyone knows these descriptions are far fetched, fall way short of the truth and are as misleading as they are repugnant.
Much has been made of Palin's inexperience but few have looked into her background to see what she has really done... preferring instead to form opinions vicariously through the rantings of the press and the comedy hour.
(I have no vested interest here and remain apolitical) but have to say Palin's hammering in the press has been nothing short of prejudiced, completely unfounded, unfair and unkind.
She is an accomplished professional woman who has managed to successfully balance career and a family (not devoid of it's myriad setbacks and problems). She deserves respect at least for that.
I am not saying she is the best person for the job... but she deserves the same respectful consideration (and treatment) as the other candidates.
I still reckon she could be a force to be reckoned with. She's a woman on a mission with high ideals and a fire in her belly. And it might take more than a Harvard Law Degree to stop her *wink*
I hope the Dems have got a Plan B!
Jean, for the record, Sarah Palin described herself as a pit bull in lipstick. It's ironic, but the McCain campaign has gone to lengths to prevent people from looking into her background. And how is calling McCain a "jet jock" not different from labelling Obama a radical muslim?
I guess John because both labels could be described as equally extreme. It's just an opinion of course.
I found Palin's Bio through a quick google search. She has accomplished a lot more than she is being given credit for.
Oh, I'm not saying she hasn't accomplished anything, Jean. It's her ideas I take strong issue with, anti-abortion, simplistic and highly uninformed world view, unlimited drilling as the answer to the energy crisis, zero ideas regarding the economy, removal of polar bears from the endangered species list, a belief in creationism over evolution, etc. etc. I haven't googled her but I'm betting her bio carries on about her opposition to the "bridge to nowhere," and doesn't mention that she originally backed it and then, when it fell through, took the money for other pork barrel projects. It also probably doesn't mention that under her governorship Alaska accepted massive amounts of pork, more than any other state in the country. (And BTW, the National Organization of Women opposes McCain/Palin. I suggest you check out their website: www.now.org.)
"Jet jock" is a widespread term for a military pilot, and can be construed as both positive and negative, depending on whom you talk to. It carries a connotation of headstrong, brash, and reckless, which some folks think is a good idea. "Radical muslim" is racist, divisive, and dangerous, not just to Obama but to a society that is struggling with deep-rooted prejudice. But what are we to make of the headline on an op-ed column in this mornings L.A. Times that called Biden "the master gasbag"?
John... I'm not advocating Palin... nor supporting her platform... just defending her right to be there. It's a gender thing I guess... but for some perverse reason we (and I mean men and women alike) feel it's okay (and fun even) to denigrate women who have the audacity to aspire to something more. That's a fact. And it's irksome. No-one deserves to be ridiculed and spoofed like this. The very fact that she has been selected as the VP Candidate should accord her at least some degree of respect and courtesy. At least
as much as the other candidates who are all notably "men". That's my issue... nothing more nothing less.
This article gives some insight into the issue... and the dilemma facing women with noses pressed firmly to the glass ceiling.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lesley-jane-seymour/why-are-female-executives_b_132499.html
Jean, did you read this article? The issue it deals with, and the point it's making, is summed up in the final paragrah: >>Now another group of women wants us to ignore Palin's flyweight credentials for a heavyweight job. My question is: Would any of these corporate success stories hire a similarly thin-resumed job candidate (male or female) to be their number two? To run their multi-billion dollar banking division? To launch their satellite into space?>> (The italics are mine.) The answer to these rhetorical questions is clearly no.
Does the fact that she's a woman exempt her from criticism for her ideas and positions? I hope not. The tragedy here (and the implication of the article you cited) is that there are so many highly qualified women who were passed over for this position in favor of a woman who fit a very narrow ideological profile. By shining the light on a woefully unqualified woman the cynical choice of Palin as a VP candidate does nothing but set back women's struggle against discrimination.
John... yes of course I read it! Yours is just one opinion... as are the opinions expressed in the article. My point was that she's entitled to her own viewpoint. Whether she is too lightweight or otherwise will be determined at the polls.
QUOTE Does the fact that she's a woman exempt her from criticism for her ideas and positions?UNQUOTE
Criticism no... not at all. But condescension and scathing ridicule... yes. Everyone and I mean everyone... even those with whome we disagree deserve a fair hearing. We don't have to like what they say... but we should respect their right to say it. It's called "being fair minded"
God I am so over this.
>>Whether she is too lightweight or otherwise will be determined at the polls.>>
Jean, I totally respect your being "over it," and understand if you don't want to answer this: I don't think anyone's fitness to govern is determined at the polls, only in their actions after they've been elected. But, good heavens, Sarah Palin is not being denied her right to be heard. She's being heard daily by cheering crowds from what one could safely call a bully pulpit. How many people are ever granted the world stage, and the opportunity to make her views known, that she's enjoying right now?
And BTW, Jean, I think one can with considerable justification say that some of the things Palin has been saying repeatedly about Obama are dripping with condescension and scathing ridicule, not just in her words but her body language and facial expressions as well.
QUOTE I don't think anyone's "fitness to govern" is determined at the polls, only in their actions after they've been elected UNQUOTE
John that's not what I said. What I said was "whether she is too lightweight or otherwise will be determined at the polls"
The people will decide. The people who vote will decide if she is too lightweight or otherwise to represent them. Scarey as that might sound... but that's how democracy works.
QUOTE And BTW, Jean, I think one can with considerable justification say that some of the things Palin has been saying repeatedly about Obama are dripping with condescension and scathing ridicule, not just in her words but her body language and facial expressions as well.UNQUOTE
I'm sorry to hear that. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately?) we don't get blow by blow live campaign coverage here like you do there.
No doubt the campaign is going to get brutal from here on in. Rather sad that she feels she has to get down and dirty to get her message across. I would have thought their campaign strategists were a little more savvy than that?
Ever the idealist though I guess... I would like to think there is still room in politics for good old fashioned courtesy, fairness and respect. Apparently not.
I do think the media is complicit in setting the tone though. Palin was definitely a target. They saw her coming.
I'd wager a bet that Palin (in her short tenure in the spotlight) has been parodied way more than Obama. Somehow it's just "not cricket" to parody a black man for being black. A woman? Well... it's par for the course isn't it? Just ask Hillary. (and it was generally acknowledged that she had what it took... not a lightweight at all).
So sad her party thought otherwise... personally I think they'll live to rue the day. A ticket with Hillary and Obama would have kicked it in.... and we wouldn't be having this ridiculous discussion! (grin)
It would have been a done deal.
My mistake, Jean, I didn't mean to put the quotes around "fitness to govern." But yes, it is scary.
I voted in the primaries for Hillary, and still regret that she isn't the candidate. I felt and feel that she'd be an excellent president. I wonder how a Clinton vice-presidency would work in an Obama administration. Perhaps it would be surprisingly good chemisty.
Sorry, though, you think the discussion is ridiculous. These are issues and questions that I think are valid to debate, and I appreciate your being here with your thoughts.
John... sorry... that was poorly worded. It wasn't the discussion that was ridiculous so much as the fact that we had to have it in the first place!
If the issues were straight forward and we were all privvy to the truth (in the media and from the mouths of our politicians)... there would have been no need for a discussion! But I'm kind of glad we did... I enjoy examining issues and trying to see things from a different perspective. The view is often amazing from the other side!
Post a Comment
<< Home