?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

more on Sarah Palin as potential VP


PALIN
--is anti-choice
--is a religious conservative
--denies global warming
--until 1.5 years ago was mayor of a town of 9,000 people (Wasilla)
--is a hunter and fisherwoman
--was elected Alaska's governor a little over a year and a half ago
--has no foreign policy experience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin)
--opposes abortion even in the case of rape or incest (http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17515&id=13661-3248945-cjrpX7x&t=1)
--supported Pat Buchanan for president in 2000 (http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17736&id=13661-3248945-cjrpX7x&t=2)
--thinks creationism should be taught in public schools (http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17737&id=13661-3248945-cjrpX7x&t=3)
--doesn't think humans are the cause of climate change (http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17517&id=13661-3248945-cjrpX7x&t=4)
--is in line with McCain's "Big Oil first" energy policy
--has pushed for more oil drilling (including in ANWAR)
--says renewables won't be ready for years
--sued the Bush administration for listing polar bears as an endangered species (bcs it could interfere with oil drilling) (http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17518&id=13661-3248945-cjrpX7x&t=5)
--had met McCain once before last Sunday, when he called her about being VP and offered the job
(http://www.moveon.org/r?r=21119&id=13661-3248945-cjrpX7x&t=8)
--is awfully inexperienced to serve as backup president, and McCain turned 72 on 8/29/08

Comments

( 23 comments — Leave a comment )
hausfrauatu
Aug. 31st, 2008 03:35 pm (UTC)
But...but...she has a vagina! Therefore we HAVE to vote for her, right? :D
liveonearth
Aug. 31st, 2008 03:39 pm (UTC)
I hate to think that women in this country could be so stupid....
machmed
Aug. 31st, 2008 05:46 pm (UTC)
What's scary is that I've actually heard ostensibly non-Republicans say that they're considering voting for McCain now simply because of this decision. So now people in this country will vote purely on the basis of genitalia. I can't say I'm surprised.
rinku
Aug. 31st, 2008 04:29 pm (UTC)
Also: http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-69834

I don't know if it's true, but either it's true or she's an incredibly irresponsible mother to go into labor on a plane and not tell anyone about it.

On the other hand, she does have some positives. She's less religious than Huckabee, and she did say Ron Paul is "pretty cool".
liveonearth
Aug. 31st, 2008 04:33 pm (UTC)
damned by faint praise
I'd say those positives are slight enough that she's still at the bottom of the heap. Poor thing. As for laboring in silence on an airplane: what on earth could she have been thinking?
rinku
Aug. 31st, 2008 04:34 pm (UTC)
Also, note that about 50% of the negatives you mention also apply to RP. RP denies global warming, is a religous conservative, is anti-choice, thinks creationism should be taught in schools as an alternative, thinks companies should be free to drill wherever they wish without state interference, doesn't even think there should be an endangered species list that's protected by the state, and so on.
liveonearth
Aug. 31st, 2008 04:41 pm (UTC)
I followed the links re: the pregnancy and it does seem as if perhaps Palin's daughter had a baby and she claimed it was her own.

Also, regarding the appearance of similarities with Ron Paul: there is a big difference between a reasoned and open-minded stance that says government should not decide on these issues, and a religious-based stance that says that government should enforce religious values.

Can you show me evidence of your assertion that Paul denies global warming?
rinku
Aug. 31st, 2008 04:51 pm (UTC)
It depends on the issue. Supporting drilling rights is saying that government should not decide on the issue, that it's up to the land owners and the corporations to work out. In general, not restricting something can be looked at as allowing it, so if you don't expressly restrict, say, the teaching of creationism in schools, pretty much every school in the south would start teaching creationism. So I'm not sure Palin is significantly different from RP or vice versa, or rather RP is just a more extreme and principled version of Palin, and Palin is a more watered-down RP with some pragmatic tendencies.

"What about the Kyoto Accords, the international agreement that aims to solve the supposed problem of global warming?"

"Environmentalists go back and forth, from warning about a coming ice age to arguing the grave dangers of global warming."

from http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/search/search.php?q=%22global+warming%22
liveonearth
Aug. 31st, 2008 04:54 pm (UTC)
Thanks for the quotes, and for your always-interesting opinion!
gavin6942
Aug. 31st, 2008 06:40 pm (UTC)
What's the religion-based stance of Palin? If you're referring to the creationism thing, she's clearly similar to Paul on that. She's not OPPOSED to alternatives being taught... she never suggested that creation should be ADDED or FORCED. She's made it clear that evolution is important to be taught.
liveonearth
Sep. 1st, 2008 05:46 pm (UTC)
What's her stance on creationism? I thought she wanted to insure that creationism was taught in public schools. Creationism is religious dogma parading as a scientific theory. I do not think that religious dogma should be taught at all, except under the heading of religion, so that people can see that many things are believed by large populations regardless of the evidence for or against them.

I have also read that she is vehemently anti-abortion, and would work to make abortion illegal in all cases. Is this not true? Please fill me in.

She doesn't mention the federal reserve. She doesn't want to bring our military home. Those are the major issues on which I agree with Ron Paul. The first "mainstream" candidate to have a good plan for what to do about our national debt will have a good chance of getting my vote....
gavin6942
Sep. 1st, 2008 06:32 pm (UTC)
I don't know where people are getting that idea that she's trying to push creationism (aside from the misleading e-mail from MoveOn). From the Alaska Daily News:

“I don’t think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum.”

She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state’s required curriculum.

Members of the state school board, which sets minimum requirements, are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Legislature.

“I won’t have religion as a litmus test, or anybody’s personal opinion on evolution or creationism,” Palin said.


So, she may personally be a creationist and may not be opposed to its teaching, but she's NOT in favor of pushing it on others. I think she's wrong to even allow it in class, but there's a big difference between "allowing" (passive) and "pushing" (active).

My understanding is that she's anti-abortion, and practiced what she preaches when she gave birth to the Down Syndrome child, Trig. I don't find that particularly offensive, although I would like to think there must be SOME exception. This Wikipedia blurb suggests she thinks of it more of a personal view than any motivation for overturning Roe v. Wade:

In 2002, while running for lieutenant governor, Palin called herself as "pro-life as any candidate can be." In 2006, while running for governor, Palin was asked what she would do if her own daughter were raped and became pregnant; she responded that she would "choose life". She and her husband stated that they had "faith that every baby is created for a good purpose." However, while running for Governor, Palin's campaign said she was not running to govern on the abortion issue, and would propose no new anti-abortion laws.

I think it's a secret that Republicans may not want known -- even the anti-abortion ones have little or no power in making abortion illegal.

She does seem in favor of ending the war:

"I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq. I heard on the news about the new deployments, and while I support our president, Condoleezza Rice and the administration, I want to know that we have an exit plan in place."

"We are a nation at war and in many [ways] the reasons for war are fights over energy sources, which is nonsensical when you consider that domestically we have the supplies ready to go."
liveonearth
Sep. 1st, 2008 10:40 pm (UTC)
Thanks! The more I learn about her the more I think there may be hope for her. Not that I have any intention of supporting McCain.
gavin6942
Sep. 1st, 2008 11:12 pm (UTC)
As another person replied in this thread, it's not so much her as those she associates with. While I hardly agree with her views, she seems to be a genuinely caring person.

McCain, though, I just think is an asshole.
machmed
Aug. 31st, 2008 05:43 pm (UTC)
Yeah, while Obama's VP choice (Biden) struck me as odd, it still seemed like he was taking his campaign seriously. This choice by McCain, however, makes me think he can't possibly be taking this seriously anymore--like it's all just one big joke to him. Maybe the senility is finally kicking in.
liveonearth
Sep. 1st, 2008 05:49 pm (UTC)
Yes....he is old....well past the age when the signs of mental decline general hit, here in America. He does seem kind of out of it. I only worry about him because the neocons have successfully manipulated the two prior elections. I don't think he has any chance of getting enough votes to surpass Obama, given how "activated" the democrats are currently. But I do think he has a chance to win, and to serve as the next figurehead.
inibo
Aug. 31st, 2008 05:45 pm (UTC)
It sort of toned down a bit to today, but yesterday RonPaulFourms was totally wacky. I haven't seen that much chaos since they released the "He's Catchin' On" ad in New Hampshire.
machmed
Aug. 31st, 2008 05:51 pm (UTC)
I also want to add that Palin's platform, as you've listed here, is so incredibly haphazard and ideologically inconsistent. It's mind boggling. That's one thing I hate the most about the overall platforms of the two major parties: no shred of philosophical or logical sense can be gleaned from them; they're just all over the place, presumably in an effort to pander to the most politically potent interest groups.
gavin6942
Aug. 31st, 2008 06:36 pm (UTC)
I got the MoveOn e-mail and found it really disappointing. Like yourself, I know they're pro-Obama and biased against McCain, but I found this painted too much of a one-sided picture.

For example, her actual statements make it more clear that she's not pro-creationism, or at least not as much as it sounds in the factoid.

And, yes she's big oil (she lives in Alaska and her husband worked for BP)... but my understanding is that SHE is for drilling in ANWAR and McCain isn't, so this distorts McCain's record.

And she has NEVER (to my knowledge) denied global warming, she just doesn't think it's primarily caused by humans. I agree with her on that.

And what's wrong with pat Buchanan? I love Pat Buchanan.
inibo
Aug. 31st, 2008 11:55 pm (UTC)
I thought the same thing. In a lot of ways Kos' smear is like an endorsement :)
gavin6942
Sep. 1st, 2008 05:01 am (UTC)
Well, it doesn't mean I like her any more than I did...
inibo
Sep. 1st, 2008 06:09 am (UTC)
I like her OK, just not the people she has now chosen to associate herself with.
gavin6942
Sep. 1st, 2008 06:41 pm (UTC)
That's fair. The more I learn about her, the more I think her flaws are minor compared with her mentors -- say, Stevens and McCain.
( 23 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

moon
liveonearth
liveonearth

Latest Month

June 2019
S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by chasethestars