Sarah Palin: Thoughts?

[Gryphon Avocatio]

I couldn't think of a better place to do this, so why not the good-old Shirerothian off-topic!

So, McCain chose Sarah Palin to be his VP nominee.

What are people's thoughts, concerns, and feelings about this? Do you even care? (and can we try to keep this from devolving into an emotional Liberal/Conservative flame war, please?)


Personally, I'm not surprised by the pick. Several reliable newspapers had hinted that McCain would chose a female VP (namely Palin). However, I can't help but feel that this is a stunt. He clearly needed to draw attention from Obama, which he did. Today is the first time in months that there is no mention of Obama on my Google news page, and he just got the nomination from his party last night. McCain is also very obviously trying to grab at the disgruntled Clinton supporters who feel that a woman should be in the White House.

Overall, I think he's making a big mistake choosing somebody who very few people have ever heard of. There were plenty of well-known conservatives who could have filled the ticket that wouldn't cause people to have to run to Wikipedia just to vet them. The lack of experience he's been trying to pin to Obama for months now applies even more so to Palin. McCain is of an age where his health could suddenly deteriorate, and if it were to do so we might wind up with a very inexperienced newcomer in the most powerful seat in the world.

These are just some of my thoughts, anyway. I really am curious to hear what others think....

[Bayen]

I thought it was kind of lame. That's "the wrong kind of politics." It seems pretty clear he just picked her to try and pick up some Hillary supporters instead of based on merit for VP. But that's just what it seemed like to me - I barely know anything about her. Maybe as we learn more about who Palin is as a candidate she'll prove that she's up to the job. Maybe.

[hypatias mom]

Have you been listening to her--her speeches, her perspectives, her positions on important issues? I think Palin is an inspired choice--she brings in a more conservative stance on some hot-button issues important to the politically conservative Republicans. She is a woman, which is always a novelty. She is no-nonsense, anti-corruption, fiscally responsible, and environmentally sensitive. She is smart, imaginative, and independent. She has eliminated a lot of extraneous expenditures and saved Alaska many hundreds of thousands of dollars. She sold the state jet and flies commercial. She drives herself, doing away with a driving detail. She has been in public service for about 16 years, first as a city counselwoman, then a mayor, and now as governor. She beat a corruipt sitting governor in the primary and took his office in the general election. She is a mother of 5, one of whom deploys to Iraq in 2 weeks. She may be relatively unknown in the national press, but she seems a breath of fresh air compared to the status quo so typical of the Washington establishment.

I realize my take on this candidacy will fly in the face of the perspectives held by most micronationalists, but I think this candidacy has promise, if only to expand the range of candidates from which one may choose.

[Ari Rahikkala]

She eats moose burgers. Isn't that reason enough for Shirithians to oppose her?

[Scott of Hyperborea]

Politically, she's a great pick. She's charismatic, fascinating, smart, ideologically sound, and personable. Ooooh attractive member of historically disadvantaged group with fascinating life story! She's like a Republican Obama. And she balances the dead white male at the head of the ticket (McCain gets to be an honorary dead white male even though he's technically still alive).

From a governance point of view, more of a problem. The Obama campaign's spin is (and they've got a point) that there's a very real chance McCain will die or go senile or have a heart attack or something in the next four years, and then this random Alaskan whose only qualification is ability to wrestle grizzly bears bare-handed will be President of the United States. If I had to have Joe Biden or Sarah Palin as President, right now, I think I would (grudgingly) choose Joe Biden. And in the end that's what a VP is all about.

But the Republicans are counterarguing (and I think they have a point too) that it all comes down to ticket balance. Both tickets have a charismatic fascinating minority and a lots-of-experience old white guy. The Republicans (so they will say) at least put the guy with the experience on the top and had the decency to keep the pretty-but-inexperienced politician in a relatively unimportant position. If they can phrase it that way, and make people believe it, they can win the election.

[Gryphon Avocatio]

I agree that as far as conservative ideology goes she is a great pick, just the sort of person that McCain needed to reassure those on the right. And I agree with Carol that she's a strong person who has done a notable amount for the state of Alaska.

I just can't help but think that there is somebody better for the job. There are many conservative politicians who have more experience in the realm of things the Executive of a very, very powerful nation ought to know. Maybe that's one of the things I don't quite understand. In choosing Palin, McCain single-handedly obliterated one of his best arguments against Obama: experience. Say what you will about her values and her virtues, the woman has no appreciable experience on the national level, and certainly none in the international sphere. I've heard a few people argue that Palin has been in Politics longer than Obama, and so McCain might still be able to fairly use the experience card in some situations, but I think the fact that Obama lectured in law for 12 years ought to count for something.

As far as anti-corruption goes, I find the fact that she's under investigation for abuse of power in dismissing a state safety commissioner a bit, well, inconsistent. I know, I know...innocent until proven guilty, but it does cast a shadow over any sort of pros she has in that area.

We'll see, though. I'm watching this develop with great interest.

[Scott of Hyperborea]

[desperate attempt to save topic] http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/30 ... 486/580223 [/attempt]

[Ari Rahikkala]

I think I'll just split the off-topic part into a new thread...

Posts about creationism vs. evolution now at http://shireroth.kuroshiro.net/forum/vi ... f=2&t=9191.

[Erik Mortis]

I am angered. That is my reason for disliking her. She wants to teach creationism. Thus, that alone is enough for me to conclude she should NOT be leading our nation.

[hypatias mom]

Are you implying, Erik, that because Sarah Palin is a woman of faith she is not qualified to lead our nation? Most of the Founding Fathers were also men of faith, and it was not hindrance or a distraction when they held positions of power. It seems very narrow-minded to condemn someone whose world view is diifferent than yours.

[Kaiser Ayreon]

Aren't all candidates "people of faith"?

[hypatias mom]

That is what they have all claimed, I believe.

[Jonas]

McCain is the devil, he is evil!
At least, that is what our media wants us to believe. They try to give us a good picture of Obama and a bad picture of McCain. However, if I would be American I certainly would vote for McCain.
I don't know why, maybe because I'm more a conservative guy in RL or maybe because in our country Yves Leterme promissed change, but it got even worse. I don't like candidates with campaigns of so-called 'change'.
I said it to my parents that Yves would ruin it, but did they listen?! Nooooooooo.

Barack Obama is the Orwellian candidate, says columnist Jack Cashill.

* Obama's meaningless slogans like "Change" were predicted by George Orwell.

I'm sorry that I interfered, I don't know the political situation like you know it.

(To the Obama-fans: Obama rules! )
(To the McCain-fans: McCain rules! )

[b3n|<3r|\|]

The conservatives in our country are quite funny, along with all the other politicians. It's a shame that the same sector of society that is meant to lead us is so easily made the target of ridicule. And this guy won!

[hypatias mom]

It is hard to see the real person behind all the propaganda from both sides, and we frequently end up with the leaders we deserve if we aren't paying close attention to any hidden agendas behind the attractive facade. I think that any time some new, attractive face is presented, we need to pay special attention to what is really there, if anything.

[Malliki]

With ten parties in the Belgian Chamber of Representatives, with the biggest party having 18.5% of the seats, it's probably hard forming strong coalitions.

[hypatias mom]

Ten parties????? I'm amazed Belgium can come to any decisions at all with such a crowded field of candidates. Here, the population is nearly evenly divided between the two major parties, and choices often hinge on the decisions of a few previously "undecided" voters.

[Malliki]

Belgium has a proportional election system which tends to lead to a multi-party system, while the US has a majority election system which tends to lead to a two party system. Sweden has seven parties in the Riksdag, but we also have strong blocks (right and left) who usually manage to get a majority.

[Oroigawa Koreyasu]

You know what the US needs? A good ol' monarch or dictator or other authoritarian government. That'll show you who's boss. In the meantime...

*runs away to Sweden*

[Jonas]

Ten parties????? I'm amazed Belgium can come to any decisions at all with such a crowded field of candidates. Here, the population is nearly evenly divided between the two major parties, and choices often hinge on the decisions of a few previously "undecided" voters.

Don't forget that in Belgium the French- and Dutchspeaking citizens have their own party. For example, I can't vote on a Frenchspeaking party.
I blame that system for our troubles, I want to vote on madame Non, but I'm not allowed
On the other hand, in RL I see parties like I do in Shireroth: as an unnecessairy evil that divides the people.

[Malliki]

In RL, parties are an integral part of any democracy. Don't blame the system for the failure of some parties.

[Jonas]

In RL, parties are an integral part of any democracy. Don't blame the system for the failure of some parties.

I know that organisations that tell lies, divide the people in groups and scare each other for the other side is a part of democracy. If you want to call it democracy, four or five people of the party that decide what their representatives need to vote (even if those people are elected by the people, and not by the party. The party has the last say)...

[Bayen]

So you want one-party rule? That's gone well... I think it's the competition that keeps us from that... we need a balance...

[Malliki]

There are parties that act like that, yes. Is that because of the party system or something else? I would say something else. Democracy isn't perfect, and the party system isn't perfect, but it is better than any other system ever tried.

[b3n|<3r|\|]

I think Winston Churchill said that. ("I'll let you be in my dreams if I can be in yours"... I said that.)

[Jonas]

So you want one-party rule? That's gone well... I think it's the competition that keeps us from that... we need a balance...

I think that no parties is better.

There are parties that act like that, yes. Is that because of the party system or something else? I would say something else. Democracy isn't perfect, and the party system isn't perfect, but it is better than any other system ever tried.

Why is it better? War didn't stop because of democracy, there are still poor people. And you must be lucky if the government really listens to you.
You say there are parties that act like that, so you mean there are some. In the USA it's enough to have two parties that act like that. It's a serious problem that people call a nation a democracy when in fact a small group rules it.
It's terribly hard to rebel against a government that calls itself and looks like it's democratic.

Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time (Winston Churchill). That's why I believe that we need to evolve and not stop here, with the current form of democracy.

With parties you divide your population in camps, instead of dividing your enemies you're weakening your own country. And democracy like it is now, gives as result that representatives have to urge to write laws. Laws are needed but after 200 years, if they can't write any rules that are really needed they begin to write and approve thousands of riducul, crazy and illogical laws and decrees. Afteral, they are payed to do it.
I was in Italy and saw how that country has hundreds of illogical and unnecessairy rules, this opens the way for the maffiosa (which people want to follow a government that almost tells you what you need to eat? They are unhappy).

[Ari Rahikkala]

I like this thread.

[Erik Mortis]

No. I'm saying that I care to much about education and the future of our children then to risk electing a creationist. Faith is fine and good. I plan to raise my kids with a faith for a time, proly Buddhism; You never hear about Buddhist extremists bombing people. I'm just saying I want my kids taught about the real world around them, and not archaic, mythological dogmas, masquerading as reality.

[Jonas]

No. I'm saying that I care to much about education and the future of our children then to risk electing a creationist. Faith is fine and good. I plan to raise my kids with a faith for a time, proly Buddhism; You never hear about Buddhist extremists bombing people. I'm just saying I want my kids taught about the real world around them, and not archaic, mythological dogmas, masquerading as reality.

It doesn't mean that you never heard of it, that there aren't any extremist Buddhists who bomb people. I don't want to interfere in what religion you want to learn your kids, but I hope you give them the chance (when they are older) to chose their own direction. Not that I think you would force them to follow Buddhism.

[b3n|<3r|\|]

It doesn't mean that you never heard of it, that there aren't any extremist Buddhists who bomb people. I don't want to interfere in what religion you want to learn your kids, but I hope you give them the chance (when they are older) to chose their own direction. Not that I think you would force them to follow Buddhism.

I think, of all religions, one of the religions that gives someone a good chance to choose their own direction is Buddhism. At any rate, with Catholicism, children are taught "God is omniscient omnibenevolent omnipotent father of us all, with Jesus his son (also God too!) and a Holy Spirit" and they simply don't grow up to believe it. I think raising religious kids is not about indoctrination but opening their minds to the possibility that there is something greater than people and our works. Also to ensure they know SCIENCE IS FALSE LIES!