Left: "Sarah Palin is inexperienced and unqualified to be president."
Right: "And Barack Obama?"
The Palin pick: A case of rope-a dope?
The more I see of Sarah Palin, the more I love this choice for a variety of reasons.
First of all, let me get one thing out of the way. I cannot argue that she is ready to be president from day one. She needs seasoning, and I pray McCain will be able to serve a full term. On the other hand, I don't think Hillary Clinton was ready either. More importantly, either is Barack Obama.
Of course, the Obama campaign jumped quickly on her rather thin resume. The first thing we heard was this from Obama spokesman, Bill Burton:
"Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency. Governor Palin shares John McCain's commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade, the agenda of Big Oil and continuing George Bush's failed economic policies -- that's not the change we need, it's just more of the same," said Bill Burton, Obama Campaign Spokesman."
What Mr Burton failed to remember was that his candidate, Barack Obama, is just as inexperienced as Palin if not more so. Apparently, some Obama staffers understood this because later comments throughout the day focused more on her conservative ideals rather than the lack of experience. Obama et al also have to remember that they alienated millions of women by their "dissing" of Hillary. Do they want to repeat that?
Of course, it could be argued back and forth who has the most political experience. Obama has 12 years in the Illinois State Senate and US Senate total, while Palin has 13 years in local municipal politics (small-town mayor and less than two years as Alaska's governor.) It could be argued that a governor has daily managerial experience, while a US Senator gives speeches and casts votes. At any rate, take your pick.
The point is that Burton's comment was a case of premature shooting from the hip. (Of course, it can be argued that McCain's arguments against Obama's inexperience have been weakened considerably by his choice of Palin.)
Not surprisingly, MSNBC broke the news in a thoroughly biased and unprofessional manner today. Under the headline "Breaking news", MSNBC flashed the pick with the sub-title; "How many houses will Palin mean for McCain?" (I may have a word or two off here, but it was a clear shot at McCain's bumbling of the number of homes he owns.) Is that what you call professional journalism? Whatever happened to the line between straight news reporting and editorializing?
Most conservatives seem to be very happy with the choice, and there are an abundance of reasons they should be. First of all, Palin is a solid conservative. She is pro-life, and just recently chose to have her fifth child last April even though she knew it would be born with Downs Syndrome. She is pro-gun (a member of NRA)and pro-drilling in ANWR. (Hopefully, she can influence McCain in that regard.) She is also, in virtually every respect, the un-Hillary. Did I mention that Palin (a former beauty queen) is also drop-dead gorgeous? That, of course, shouldn't count for anything-but it does.
Notwithstanding Mr Burton's statement, Palin's selection cannot be considered "more of the same". It was an exciting pick. Probably McCain and his advisers realized they were in a position where they had to steal the attention away from Obama. That they did.
I am certainly no advocate of picking people for jobs just because they fit into some gender or racial slot. Yet, America is fast approaching the day when we are not going to see many more all-male, all-white tickets. The country is ready for a minority president, just as it is ready for a female president. We should still insist on the right person, however.
It could very well be that McCain has played rope-a-dope with the Obama campaign, hoping they would jump up without thinking and scream, "inexperienced, not qualified". If so, Mr Burton fell right into the trap.
Thus far, I am very pleased that McCain chose a young and attractive conservative. As for the inexperience factor, which do you prefer, an experienced president with an inexperienced vice president or an inexperienced president with an experienced vice president? Take your pick.
12 comments:
Will this finally end the silly arguments over "experience?" I sure hope so. The arguments of both sides basically just cancel each other out now.
You may possibly be correct.
She supports the teaching creationism in public schools. Ergo, she is an idiot.
I was 95% certain that I would not vote for McCain. This pushes me to the 100% mark. I will not vote for any religious nut jobs.
Gary, I figured that you would support McCains choice no matter who. Now, I am sticking my neck out, but just how can a mother of five suit the conservative, mostly Christian population? Doesn't she have anything else to do? What do those religious people say? Who is minding her children. She puts her personal goals ahead of her family and that doesn't sit well with me. I guess beauty is a great selling point, always was, always will be, but from YOU???? Listening to her voice for the next four years, oh my God, it's not going to happen.
Ingrid,
Actually, the first thing that is appealing is that when she learned her child, who was not yet born, had Downs Syndrome, she chose to have it.
Yes, I winced and asked myself why a mother with a 6 month old child with Downs Syndrome was running for VP. But if I said that, wouldn't feminists call me a sexist who wants to keep women at home?
As for the beauty, I was merely pointing out that it would help-I also said that it should not matter, but it does.
Lance,
I am not aware of her stand on that issue. As for me, I would have no problem with it if it were offered (in a public school) as a competing theory along with evolution as a way of explaining the current debate.
What liberals object to in this choice is that she is a conservative. They don't really care about the thin resume because Obama has an equally thin resume.
I would have no problem with it if it were offered (in a public school) as a competing theory along with evolution as a way of explaining the current debate.
Here is the problem, Gary, and I'm sorry, but your answer displays the same general ignorance about science that the majority of this country suffers from.
Evolution is a theory. Gravity is a theory. Germ theory is...well, a theory. When scientists use the word "theory," they're not talking about the same thing that you and I talk about in everyday conversation. A theory, in scientific terms, is as close to a fact as anything can possibly get in science.
Creationism does not meet this definition. It is not testable. It is not falsifiable.
On one hand, there's a theory that's supported by 150 years of research in biology and other fields including geology and genetic research. 95% of the world's scientists accept it, as do 99% of the world's biologists. Also, we wouldn't have much of our modern medicine if it wasn't for some understanding of evolution.
On the other hand, creationism wants to teach science from a book that claims that snakes can talk and that there's a correlation between hair length and superhuman strength. Also, these creationists, as part of their mission statement, refuse to accept any evidence that denies a strict interpretation of The Bible. Hardly the scientific method to ignore evidence.
It is NOT a competing theory. To even suggest that it is one is to deny reality. The only debate that exists is amongst people who have no idea what the hell they're talking about and those who do. The scientific community is not engaged in a serious discussion on this issue - and there's no research on creationism that has made it to any kind of peer-reviewed scientific journal.
Try calling creationism a "competing theory" to the people who map the human genome. Tell it to a paleontologist. Tell it to the scientists who are working on the cures for the diseases that plague the world. See how many of them think that equal time should be given to talking snakes and forbidden fruit.
Do you also support the idea of teaching both sides of the Holocaust? Should we give equal time to Holocaust deniers? After all, there's a greater percentage of historians who deny it than scientists who deny evolution - so maybe we should teach both sides of that issue, huh?
Let's also teach astrology alongside astronomy. Alchemy with chemistry. Magic with physics. Oh, and let's also give equal time to the "theory" that the earth is flat.
Gary, there's a reason why this country is falling behind in the sciences. The fact that we have such a high percentage of the population, along with political leaders, who don't seem to understand the most basic concepts, is frightening. We can't afford to have people in office who are this exceedingly ignorant.
If anything, McCain's pick has made me more likely to vote for Obama, as before I was pretty settled on going third party. (Although I probably still will.)
Lance,
This is an issue you are much more read up on than I. Yet, it seems that what you are saying is that religion is a crock, and our schools should teach that it is a crock, or am I reading to much into your response? You also seem to imply that we shouldn't have leaders who believe in a religion.
As for the theory of evolution, are you saying that when it is a "scientific theory" it is different (more proven) from say the theory that Bush bombed the twin towers, or that Hitler is living in the jungles of Brazil (celebrating his 119th birthday)?
And isn't it true that the theory of evolution also has holes in it? (I don't know what they are, but that's what I understand.)
Gary, I just read that this woman hasn't had a passport until last year. Where has she been? Choosing to have a Down Syndrome baby doesn't make you a better person, especially when you are never there to take care of it. Why can't we question a woman who choses to leave her 5 children in the care of others without being told that we are sexist. What is wrong with being a stay home mom? Abortion shouldn't be an issue and I am just sick of this. Men should keep quiet on that subject.
Ingrid,
I don't think we have much of a disagreement. As a conservative, I applaud stay-at-home moms (unlike American feminists). The point I was trying to make is that she should be applauded for having that baby instead of having an abortion. As I said, how she balances that with her political career gives me pause, but far be it from me to tell her what she should do in that regard.
This is an issue you are much more read up on than I. Yet, it seems that what you are saying is that religion is a crock, and our schools should teach that it is a crock, or am I reading to much into your response?
Well, that is indeed what I think, but it's not really my point. I think that religion has no place when it comes to biology the same way that it has no place when it comes to discussing gravity. If people want to go home and believe in a literal 6-day creation, then more power to them. What they don't get to do is present it as science when they haven't bothered to conduct any research, do any experiments, or provide an explanation as to how it can be falsified.
It is true that evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of The Bible. But you know what? So does the fact that the Earth goes around the sun. Are we going to not teach that so as not to offend anybody?
If kids are taught anything regarding science and religion, it should be pointed out to them tat there are plenty of scientists out there who can reconcile the two. Remember all of those scientists who accept evolution that I mentioned before? Most of them believe in a God, and many of them are also Christians.
Not only that, but some of the most prominent critics of teaching creationism in the science classroom are also Christians (look up Ken Miller - a practicing Catholic and one of the chief witnesses for the prosecution in the Intelligent Design trial in Dover).
So yeah, I have my beef with religion, but I don't need to appeal to that in order to make my point on this issue. (Although I realize that I tend to slip - sorry, but I think that the idea of a talking snake is silly.)
You also seem to imply that we shouldn't have leaders who believe in a religion.
Well, that's never going to happen in my lifetime, but that would be my preference. I prefer critical thought to believing in things that have no proof. Still, if a candidate was religious, but didn't let their religion cloud their perspective on matters of fact, then I wouldn't have a problem with that. (In other words - I'll vote for somebody with faith, but I won't vote for a creationist.)
As for the theory of evolution, are you saying that when it is a "scientific theory" it is different (more proven) from say the theory that Bush bombed the twin towers, or that Hitler is living in the jungles of Brazil (celebrating his 119th birthday)?
That is PRECISELY what I'm saying. Don't believe me? Ask a scientist. One thing that I'll give to the creationists is that they've done a good job of shaping the argument in this country. They throw around the word "theory" as though it means "guess". But evolution is a theory in the exact same sense that gravity is a theory. It's testable. There's evidence. It's also falsifiable.
For instance, when they started researching DNA, it was quite possible that the findings would completely blow evolutionary theory away. However, the more they learned, the more evidence there was for evolution. Also, as soon as somebody finds a rabbit fossil in the same strata as a T-Rex, evolution will go the way of alchemy. (Don't hold your breath for that though.)
And isn't it true that the theory of evolution also has holes in it? (I don't know what they are, but that's what I understand.)
It depends on what you mean by holes. Do we have every single transitional form for every single species that has ever lived? Obviously not, so you could call those "holes" I suppose. However, those gaps keep getting filled all the time with each new discovery, and each new discovery fits in with the predictions that evolution has made.
Also, there is some argument amongst scientists as to what exactly moves evolution forward, but there is no serious debate as to whether it happened or not. Anybody who says that there is a debate amongst the scientific community is either misinformed or flat-out lying.
There is a wealth of information online about the issue over creationism. Want to know something interesting that I discovered? The pro-evolution sites will directly link to the creation sites so people can see them for themselves. I've yet to see a pro-creation site link to the opposing view. The reason why is because when you examine the issue carefully, it is clear that the creationists are either 1) lying or 2) stupid.
Perhaps it might seem like I make too much of this, but I think that there's a direct link between creationist propaganda in this country and the fact that we're falling behind in the sciences. I remember looking at a poll of people in various countries and the percentages who rejected evolution. It was mostly European and industrialized nations. I seem to recall that the only country on the list where even fewer people accepted evolution was Turkey. We're becoming an embarrassment, and I feel that it's my patriotic duty to do my part to get us back on top when it comes to science.
I'd like an experienced President who isn't out of his mind.
But since there isn't one of those, I'll take the inexperienced President who isn't out of his mind.
-- km
Post a Comment