Ah, screw it, I'm not going to be able to remain I'm going to start, with the freshest face on the campaign trail, Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin. Who, in my opinion, is completely not qualified to be Vice President of the United States. My reasons for this stating that she is not qualified are outlined in key questions in an interview with ABC's Charles Gibson. I will then move on to Senator McCain, then Joe Biden, and finish with Senator Obama. After all of them, I will have a short (read: long) statement summarizing all of this. Thus begins Part I of my many part series.
Governor PalinVice president, first person in the line of succession, should anything happen to the president. Anything means that should the President die, resign or be come medically impaired, the Vice President will step in and take his place as acting president. Do we really want someone like this?
(Taken from the first interview that she did with ABC's Charlie Gibson, for those who may not know Charlie has been in the news for a better part of 20 years)
GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?
GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?
PALIN: His world view.
GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.
PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better
The Bush Doctrine, which it becomes obvious that Ms. Palin did not know, is one of the most defining pieces of Bush's watch. It one of the defining reasons why we are in Iraq right now. I know that some people may think that this is insignificant, but this is very important. Under the Bush Doctrine, even if he/congress whatever THINKSanother country is getting ready to attack us, we have the right to go in there and take them out, no questions asked, no diplomatic relations, no peace talks, nothing. Just go in there and start a war. One may also think that because this is Bush's Doctrine, that it is an irrelevant question. Wrong. This is a pretty relevant question as other world leaders know this doctrine and know what it means, unlike the Republican Nominee for Vice President. I'm sure they want to know if the next administration is going to be as aggressive, or should I say, warmongering, as this administration. One may also argue that we are in Iraq not because of the Bush Doctrine, but because Iraq had WMDs, which after over 7 years have not been found and probably never will. After it became apparent that there were no WMDs in Iraq, the current administration switched gears and said that it was because we wanted to rid Iraq of a cruel and evil dictator who was abusive to his people and would harm America if he could. Quite simply, anyone who is running for a federal office this election term should know this doctrine, and should know where they stand on this issue.
GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?
PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.
Finally, on the third time, after Charlie explained to her what the Bush Doctrine is, she came up with a fairly intelligent answer for if there were to be enough intelligence that an attack was imminent.
When I first watched this interview, I'm glad that I wasn't eating or drinking when this question was asked because I would have spit what was in my mouth all of the computer monitor.
GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?
PALIN: They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.
To quote Keith Olbermann, who I must state is quite a liberal news reporter, possible more liberal than I like: "I can see inside Chase Bank from my office, so by her standard, I'm Alan Greenspan." I know a little funny a little over the top, but honestly, can she really say that in the 20 months that she was governor of Alaska that she had a good insight on what was going on in Russia? Nobody, no matter how much land of Russia that you can see can call that good insight.
GIBSON: Have you ever met a foreign head of state?
PALIN: I have not and I think if you go back in history and if you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer that I just gave you.
Unfortunately for Palin, this is false. Every Vice President for the past 32 years has met and talked with at least one foreign head of state. A completely false statement, although she does kind cover her ass a little bit by saying "I think" and "they may." Basically, she doesn't know, and therefore, her foreign policy experience is none, never met a head of state, and never even traveled out side of the country until last year. People are saying that Obama has little to no foreign policy experience, well, Governor Palin doesn't have any either.
GIBSON: Do we have the right to be making cross-border attacks into Pakistan from Afghanistan, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?
PALIN: Now, as for our right to invade, we're going to work with these countries, building new relationships, working with existing allies, but forging new, also, in order to, Charlie, get to a point in this world where war is not going to be a first option. In fact, war has got to be, a military strike, a last option.
GIBSON: But, Governor, I'm asking you: We have the right, in your mind, to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government.
PALIN: In order to stop Islamic extremists, those terrorists who would seek to destroy America and our allies, we must do whatever it takes and we must not blink, Charlie, in making those tough decisions of where we go and even who we target.
GIBSON: And let me finish with this. I got lost in a blizzard of words there. Is that a yes? That you think we have the right to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government, to go after terrorists who are in the Waziristan area?
PALIN: I believe that America has to exercise all options in order to stop the terrorists who are hell bent on destroying America and our allies. We have got to have all options out there on the table.
My opinion, this is just wrong. Essentially she is saying that we have the right, to invade Pakistan. Their permission is not required for this; we just go in there whenever we choose. This could very well cause a conflict with the Pakistani government which at this point would be very bad. What makes this statement even worse is that John McCain even doesn't support going into Pakistan after terrorists without their permission. He has said Pakistan is a sovereign nation and we should respect that sovereignty. That is not a direct quote, but he said something very, very similar to that. It seems that Palin isn't even familiar with the policies of her running mate. This is one point that makes me believe that Palin was NOT thoroughly vetted as many members of the McCain party have stated in the past few weeks. By her not being thoroughly vetted, this also makes me believe that she was chosen as his running mate for the sole purpose of pandering to the people who would have voted for Hillary Clinton. This is wrong on so many levels. I would hope, that while running for the President of the United States, you would keep the best interests of the country in mind, not what is going to get you the most voters or make you the most popular. Granted this should be part of your strategy but you should not pick a running mate solely on the reason that he/she will get you a certain type of voter.
GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God." Are we fighting a holy war?
PALIN: You know, I don't know if that was my exact quote.
GIBSON: Exact words.Unfortunately, the transcript that I have doesn't give Palin's response to this statement.
Great, just what we need, a total religious zealot. I don't have a problem with religious people. I just have problems with the uneducated, the hypocritical, the cheats, the fakes, and the people who feel the need to throw their religion in everyone's' face. I'm not sure if these are her beliefs or not, but the church that she belonged to was a Fundamentalist Christian church. The problem that I have with Christian fundamentalists is that they believe that the earth it 6000 years old, and that 4000 years ago, dinosaurs roamed the earth with man. This is appalling, and simply cannot be true. The Fundamentalist Christian logic behind discrediting the 400 years of archaeological data that scientifically proves that the dinosaur fossils that we have found are millions and millions of years old, is that either: 1) God put dinosaur bones there and "altered" their age to make them appear that they were millions of years old to "test our faith." Or 2) every scientist that has ever done carbon dating on fossils (were talking about probably hundreds and hundreds of scientists) is wrong, they made some type of mistake while calculating the data. My opinion is that we cannot afford to have someone this far to the right in the white house. Islamic terrorists no matter what our politicians try to beat into our heads, do not hate our freedoms, they hate our religion. A religion that, while the majority of the people in this country practice, there is a percentage of the people who don't believe in the Christian ideology. I, personally, don't want to die because there are people who believe that we are on a "task from god." Essentially, she believes that somewhere in the beginnings of the Iraq war, God spoke to her, or President Bush, or a member of congress and "told" them that this was His will. Her response is "You know, I don't know if that was my exact quote" (I have a video that shows her speaking at her church) either she doesn't remember speaking at the church or she realizes she may have said something that could be potentially damaging to both her and McCain. Here's the link to the video :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_Ax2nTWhVM&NR=1
Gibson: Why do you both keep saying that Obama is going to raise peoples' taxes? It has been pretty clear of what he intends. He's talked about middle class tax cuts, and extending Bush tax cuts on everyone who earns more than 250,000 per year. It cuts taxes on over 91% of the country. Why do you keep saying that he's going to raise taxes?
Palin: Well, I would argue with the whole premise of that but his mission is to not increase taxes, he's had 94 opportunities to vote for a tax cut or not support tax increases and he's been on the other side 94 times on what I think other people want.
Voting on a bill is more complicated than people realize, given that there are 435 members in the House of Representatives and 100 members in the Senate, there are 535 people all trying to get something pushed through for their own district while also trying to satisfy lobbyists who are lining their pockets. Granted, not everyone gets handouts, but a lot of them do. What makes this so complicates is that fact that you can have a bill, whose main point is, for example, funding the Iraq war, and in the pages and pages that follow this key bill, there are dozens of pet projects from congress men all across the state. Some people have integrity and even if they support the bill, won't support all of the things attached to it. Another example is that someone may be fighting for a 10% cut in taxes and the bill only wants a 4% cut, well, if you want a 10% and you're not getting the 10% that you want, would you vote for it? Personally, if I am fighting for a 10% tax cut, I would vote down anything less what I'm asking for. Unfortunately, McCain/Palin will continue their lying and saying that "Obama will raise taxes" when there is not a single thread of evidence that supports this claim. They will continue to try to instill fear that taxes are going to go up, this is wrong. I wonder how they feel as "good Christians" that they are lying and running one of the dirtiest campaigns in the history of elections. Don't give me that crap about Obama calling Palin a pig. Not true, not one word of it. The quote was "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig" Anyone with two good ears can hear that what he is saying is applying to McCain's policies and how he claims to be able to bring change to Washington. Not to mention the fact that McCain has used that phrase many times in the course of his career. Video link of the Obama pig statement :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfiqdRhGNqw
Gibson: One of John McCain's central arguments of his campaign is eliminating earmarks. Are you with him on that?
Palin: I certainly am and of course the poster child of the earmarks was, Alaska's, what the people in the lower 48 refer to as the Bridge to Nowhere. Of course it was a bridge to a community with an airport in southeast Alaska . But that was excessive. And an earmark like that, not even supported necessarily by the majority of Alaskans, we killed that earmark, we killed that project. As I've said over and over, if Alaska wants that bridge, 300-400 million dollars, over to that island with an airport, we'll find a way to build it ourselves, the rest of the country doesn't need to build that for us.
Gibson: You have said continuously that you said to congress, "thanks but no thanks, if we're going to build that bridge, we'll build it ourselves."
Palin: Right
Gibson: But it's now pretty clearly documented, you supported that bridge before you opposed it, you were wearing a t-shirt in the 2006 campaign that showed your support for the bridge to nowhere.
Palin: I was wearing a t-shirt that had the zip code of the community that was asking for that bridge, and not all of the people in that community were asking for a 400 million or 300 million dollar bridge
I think that it's pretty clear, that if you're wearing a shirt that says "Nowhere" and the zip code of the community, then there's a pretty good chance you support it. Not only that, but she did support it. On more than one occasion she said that "I'm not going to stand in the way of progress." Another lie.
Gibson: But you turned against it after congress had basically pulled the plug, and after it had became a national embarrassment to the state of Alaska. So, do you want to revise and extend your remarks?
Palin: It has always been an embarrassment, that abuse of the earmark process has been accepted in congress. And that's what John McCain has fought and that's what I'll join him in fighting.
Gibson: But you were for it before you were against it. You were solidly for it for quite some time, until congress pulled the plug.
Palin: I was for infrastructure being built in the state and it's not inappropriate for a mayor or for a governor to request and to work with their congress to plug into the federal budget along with every other state a share of the federal budget for infrastructure.
Gibson: You didn't' say no we'll build it ourselves until after they pulled the plug correct?
Palin: No because congress still allowed those dollars to come into Alaska, they did. Transportation fund dollars still came into Alaska. It was our choice if we were going to spend it on a bridge or not. And I said thanks but no thanks. We're not going to spend it on the bridge.
Gibson: They appropriated 223 million dollars, I think, for the bridge. Then when that project died, that money was still there and the state of Alaska kept that money. Is that consistent with the image of a reformer?
Palin: It certainly is, those are infrastructure dollars that a state government and a local government need to figure out how to best prioritize how to spend those federal funds.
Some may think, big deal, she requested a whole lot of money for a bridge to a community with an airport. However it is a big deal, McCain said during his speech at the RNC, "and the first big pork barrel spending bill that lands on my desk I will veto that bill and I will make them famous. You will know their names." And he sounded pretty fired up about that. McCain does not support projects like this, he considers it to be wasteful spending, and by the lines above, Palin seems to think that it is "not inappropriate for a mayor or a governor to request and to work with their congress to plug into the federal budget along with every other state a share of the federal budget for infrastructure. While this may be true, 223 million dollars is a lot of money for a state with 670,000 people. She may be against earmarks now, but she supported them before she was against them.
Gibson: When you were mayor of Wasilla you hired a very prominent lobbyist to get Wasilla the money.
Palin: We did, we paid 30 thousand dollars for a lobbyist who was in DC because were thousands and thousands of miles away from DC. It would have cost us a lot more to be traveling back and forth from this small community.
Once again with the earmarks, not only that, but Wasilla is a town of 7028 people and they are paying thirty thousand dollars for a lobbyists, to me that is absurd. Janesville is a town of a little over 60 thousand and I can almost say for certain that they don't have a lobbyist working in Washington to get money to them. At this point it becomes pretty obvious that Palin loves her earmarks, loves them, enough to pay a lobbyist to get them the money that they want. Not to mention, that she built a "sports arena" in Wasilla. A 13 million dollar sports arena for a town of seven thousand. Excessive spending, totally excessive spending and she is going to bring about "change" to Washington?
Gibson: The state of Alaska in 2008 got 155 million dollars in earmarks for a population of 670,000 people. That's 231 dollars per person in Alaska. The state of Illinois, Obama's state, got 22 dollars per person. You got ten times per person as much. How does that square with you?
Palin: We have drastically, drastically reduced our earmark requests.
Gibson: Governor, this year you have requested 3.2 million for researching the genetics of harbor seals, money to study the mating habits of crabs, isn't that exactly the type of thing that John McCain has objected to.
Palin: Those requests through our research divisions, our wildlife departments and our universities did come through that system. But wanting it to be in the light of day, not behind closed doors with lobbyists making deals with congress, that's not going to be accepted in a McCain/Palin administration, earmark abuse will stop.
Okay, the truth comes out; Earmarks are okay, as long as they are "in the light of day" not wanting them to be closed doors. By her logic, the "bridge to nowhere" would have been okay if it would have been made public. Seems pretty fuzzy to me that earmarks being in the light of day are okay. I don't think that McCain would have supported this even if it were in the light of day.
And now to a pretty significant issue one that I have my own personal opinions on that I will get to shortly.
Gibson: In the time we have left I would like to talk about some social issues. Roe vs. Wade, do you think it should be reversed?
Palin: I think it should and I think the states should be able to decide that issue.
Gibson: It's a critical issue for so many women.
Palin: It is.
Gibson: You believe that women should not have that choice.
Palin: It is a very critical, very sensitive and a very personal issue also with so many women and men across this nation. I am pro-life, I do respect other people's opinion on this also. And I think that a culture of life is best for America, because I think we can all agree on the need for and the desire for fewer abortions in America and greater support for adoption. For other alternatives that women can and should be empowered to embrace to allow that culture of life. That's my personal opinion on this, Charlie.
Okay, she stated many times during the course of the interview that their main goal under a McCain/Palin administration would be to get the government back on the side of the people. Essentially, she wants less government with less government intrusion into our daily lives. This is one aspect where she wants more intrusion into our lives. She is essentially saying that, you can't make that choice, you have to do it this way, and once you do you only have these options. Now, I personally could never be party to an abortion, I personally could never do it. However, there are some people who for reasons of their own, either don't want kids or have other reasons. I agree that there should be fewer abortions performed in this country and in the world in general, but forcing a woman have a child that she doesn't want doesn't seem right to me. Another side of the issue, is that I don't think that banning all abortions would solve anything, women would still get pregnant without wanting to have a child and they would then have a child that they don't want, or we would go back to having "back alley" abortions, which poses a substantial risk for serious injury to the woman. I do, however agree that partial-birth abortions are wrong. What would make this process a whole lot easier, would be to have counseling available to the woman before the abortion is performed and discuss with the woman other options at length that she has. Only after this consultation should the abortion be performed. This is a free country and there are things that people don't like and things that people think should be changed, I don't think smoking should be banned everywhere but it is. But for people to impose their beliefs on other people is wrong. It's funny that she says that she thinks a "culture of life is best for America" when she supports this misguided war, going into Pakistan without permission and the potential destruction of an endangered species habitat. Culture of life? Yeah for humans and Americans, everyone else if fair game.
Gibson: John McCain would allow abortions in the case of rape or incest. You believe in only in the case where the life on the mother is in endangered.
Palin: That is my personal opinion.
Gibson: Would you change and accept it in rape and incest?
Palin: My personal opinion is that abortion allowed if the life of the mother is endangered.
Only if the mother's life is endangered? If Palin has her way, if you get raped or get pregnant due to incest, regardless of age, you must carry to term. Doesn't really seem fair to me. Maybe I'm just guessing, but rape is a pretty traumatic thing, and I think it would only be made worse by knowing that you are carrying half of your unwilling sperm donor's DNA. I can't imagine how that would feel I just think it would take a really bad situation and make it much, much worse. Well, I guess it makes sense coming from a governor who makes women who are raped pay for their own rape kits. If you are a woman in Alaska, which coincidentally has the highest number or rapes per capita, you must pay for your own rape kit which costs about $40 I think. She thought that a woman who alleges that she is raped should have to pay for it, tax payers shouldn't have to. This is just totally wrong. They were a victim of a crime, what's next, victims of attempted murder or violent assault being forced to pay for DNA testing? This is absurd and should never happen.
Gibson: Homosexuality. Genetic or learned?Palin: Oh, I don't, I don't know but I'm not one to judge and you know I'm from a family and from a community with many, many members from many diverse backgrounds and I'm not going to judge some on whether they believe that homosexuality is a choice or genetic. I'm not going to judge them.
She's not going to judge people if they think that homosexuality is a choice or if it's genetic, great, that's fine but answer his question. He was asking what you thought, do you think that homosexuality is genetic or learned. Not, would you judge someone based on whether they thought homosexuality was genetic or learned? That was not the question. I'm actually more curious to know on what she thinks of marriage or civil unions for homosexual couples. I know that in McCain's address to the RNC he said something about all Americans being entitled to the same rights, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I may be just guessing, but by both of them being members of the Republican Party, think the above statement should be revised. McCain should have said, "Americans are entitled to the same rights, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, unless you are a homosexual." I don't really care what the religious right thinks, I can understand that they are reading a book that states that this is immoral and that gays aren't normal people. But this is not the United States of the Christian Right, this is the United States of America where people look to us as a great nation of free people. Some claim that allowing gays to marry would undermine the institution of marriage in this country. Excuse me? Almost 50% of marriages end in divorce, celebrities get married and then divorced often in the same year, in Vegas you can get married in a virtually drive through chapel or whatever you want to call it, we have people who get married 4, 5, 6, 7 times, Brittney Spears got married for 55 hours and these people are talking about preserving the sanctity of marriage? Please, it has already been tarnished long before the United States was even a county. All one has to do to see how pure and good the institution of marriage is, is look to the monarchies in old Europe, where marriages were forced marriages based on power and land. The majority of marriages by lords back then were not the bright, happy, joyous occasions that we have now today. Another shining example would be good old Henry the VIII, when he was not able to get a divorce in the church because his wives failed to give him an heir to the throne, he simply had them killed, and how is that for "sanctity." Gays should be allowed to visit their loved ones in the hospital and be entitled to what would ordinarily be called "marital property" I remember reading something a while back where an 80 year old woman was forced out of her lifelong partners room as she passed away because they were not married and she wasn't family. She had to wait outside the room while other family members got to spend the last moments of this woman's partners' life by her bedside. I don't care who you are, that is sad, cold, and flat out wrong.
Sarah Palin is suing the federal government because the endangered species act that protects polar bears interferes with Alaska's ability to drill for oil.
On drilling in Alaska, and polar bears – Glenn Beck- CNN Headline news. The video was posted on youtube.com about June 2, 2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3jnbiHAMuY
Palin: "We are suing the federal government, recognizing that the endangered species act is not a place to, um, kind of mess around with in, in, terms of listing as threatened a species that right now is in fact very, very healthy. In fact right now the number of polar bear has risen dramatically in the last 30 years. Our fear being that extreme environmentalists will use this tool, the ESA (Endangered Species Act), to curtail or halt north shore production of very rich resources that America needs. You know, we need that oil, we need that gas. I'm glad you're fired up about it Glenn, and I appreciate your monologue there.
Beck: I'm so sick of it governor, Is it true that ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge), where they want to drill, it is 700 hundred miles away from the closest tree? Is that true?
One question, what does the proximity of a tree have to do with the protection of a threatened species? Yes, we may need the gas, we may need the oil but surely there is some compromise that could be made. However, I think this question is pretty irrelevant.
Palin: Well, what's true about Anwar, it's about a 2000 acre plot also, a lot of land that is, um, shoot, the footprint is smaller than LAX for instance. That plot of land that needs to be explored and, ah, ANWR is, it's right for exploration. There are so many other parts of Alaska plain also that, again, very, very rich in reserves and if we want to become more energy independent, it makes sense, obviously to be looking domestically. Safe, clean domestic supplies of energy that Alaska has and that we're ready willing and able to contribute to the rest of the US. It infuriates us also the lock up of Anwar is also leading to that um, lack of independence and lack on energy security that we need in America.
Beck: You know that they are suing now in the state of Massachusetts because they want to build windmills of the coast of Nantucket, and the federal government won't let them do it, and they're suing because they say that the state has a right to build these windmills if they want to do it. If they win, can you use that legislation to say, you know what? I don't care what you say Washington, we're drilling, it our oil.
Palin: (laughs) it is our oil, it is federal land though so we need congress to see the light and quite relying on, unstable and, ah, these foreign régimes that are unfriendly to America. Asking them to increase production for America's security and our energy needs to be met. That's ridiculous, its nonsensical again when your sister state the 49th state in our union Alaska up here we have those resources and they're ready to be tapped.
Beck: What does the average Alaskan say about this?
Palin: The average Alaskan says again we recognize these reserves being ready to be tapped and we are ready to contribute more to the US. There are really hungry markets here in Alaska too though, we're paying outrageous prices for our oil and our heating fuel.
Beck: Aren't you paying the most in the country? You're paying over $4 a gallon in Alaska.
According to AAA data from their website updated on September 16, 2008, Alaska does pay the highest price for gasoline in the country at an average of $4.39 per gallon. Even though Alaska produces oil, my guess is that there are few, if any, refineries in Alaska. Basically, oil would be drilled for in Alaska, sent to a refinery far away and then brought back to Alaska. Even if that isn't' the case, the cost to have gasoline shipped to Alaska, it being quite a distance from the lower 48, could add considerably to the cost. Just a guess, but it's a fairly educated one.
Palin: Yeah, isn't that ridiculous. Yes we are, and Alaskans collectively we own these resources underground we want them to be tapped and again were ready to contribute more to the US in terms of resources that can lead to, um, ah, a safer nation. And I say this, you know, while out nation is at war. We'll, we're fighting in some sense over energy supplies. It's ridiculous we have the resources here.
I have mixed feelings on all of this, and I slightly agree with drilling in Alaska to an extent. For one, I agree with Barack Obama when he says that drilling in Alaska is the equivalent of just putting a band-aid on our current problem. I don't think that we should do nothing at all but there remains the environmental impact that drilling in northern Alaska would pose. We need to weigh our options and drill in Alaska with as little environmental impact as possible. We also need to broaden our research into alternative sources of energy with a severe reduction on our dependence on fossil fuels, not just foreign fossil fuels but even domestic fossil fuels as well.
Beck: Have you considered, or have you been talked to by anyone or has anyone said anything about you running with John McCain?
Palin: There's a lot of rumor and speculation about not just me though a lot of governors who may be tapped at least for consideration. There're rumors out there.
Beck: Well, would you go to that den of vipers in Washington if you were asked?
Palin: (laughs) You know if I had to make such a decision today it would be, Um, No, there's a lot that Alaska could be should be doing to contribute more to the US and I think that I can help do that as governor of the state staying here.
Really? How quickly one can change their mind in just a short time. This interview was conducted around June 2, 2008 and about 3 months later she apparently didn't blink when asked if she would run with John McCain. It may be irrelevant but I was just kind of amazed that she could change her opinion so quickly.
Miscellaneous InformationIt is unclear whether the information given by the people interviewed in this video is credible, but actions speak louder than words. Apparently, while Palin was mayor of Wasilla, she asked the town librarian about the process of having books removed from the library. When the librarian responded that the books were purchased in accordance with federal guidelines and that no book would ever be removed (i.e. Banned) from the library, she was coincidentally fired shortly afterwards. Sounds a little fishy to me. However, no books were removed from the library and no books have been requested to be removed from the library.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZO2jNmMcck&feature=iv&annotation_id=event_877486
Some other things about Palin, she apparently has found that earmarks are bad. In the short time that she was mayor though, through her well paid lobbyist in Washington, D.C., Wasilla was able to secure over 27 million dollars in earmarks. That is pretty substantial for a town of only 7028 people. That averages out to just over three thousand dollars per person. Not too bad for a PTA member, turned city council member, then on her way to mayor of Wasilla for 2 years. This is exactly the type of spending that McCain was against, and it seems that it is the type of behavior that Palin things is okay, if it is in the "light of day" of course.
As governor of Alaska, she was elected as an independent in 2006; she was a supporter of the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere." No matter what she says, she supported it before she was against it. A quick search on YouTube will yield many results that show here supporting it. One quote of hers was "I'm not going to stand in the way of progress."
This is just amazing, it is Wasilla's (population 7028)13 million dollar sports arena. First of all does a town of seven thousand really need a complex this large? It seems totally excessive and totally unnecessary. Before Palin took over as Mayor the town had no red ink on their budge at all and had surpluses every year. When she left office to run for governor, the town was in debt, with no budget surplus at all. Was this really a sound plan? She claims that it was okay, because this was a referendum on the ballot one year. The town voted for it, the loans were taken out and the place was built. I guess that makes it okay, but the fact that it is a huge complex for such a small community makes me thing that the money could be better spent elsewhere, maybe at a school or something. However, after looking at the pictures on the site and seeing the ice rink and knowing how much her son Track (which brings up something else, I'll get to that later) likes hockey, makes me thing that there may have been a little pressure on the Palin's part to get this massive arena built. Fiscal responsibility? I think not.
http://alaskarama.com/musc/
Alaska allows a per diem for the Governor when they stay at home, it is only $60 per day that she is allowed but in the 20 months that she has been governor she has billed the state over $17,000. This averages out to 283 days that she spent at home far from the capital of Juneau. Just to give her the benefit of the doubt, she was in office for 20 months, in those 20 months she was gone 283 days, that is over 2 weeks every month that she was not in the capital, just a little more than part time as some months have 5 weeks. Is this how she is going to be as Vice President? Part-time? Another question that Charles Gibson asked during the interview was something along the lines of, some of her critics say how is she going to be able to be vice president and raise a family of five. She responded that it would be easy and that she wouldn't have a problem. Now, I'm not questioning her ability as a mother, but by her not being in the capital city nearly 50% of the time and being at home, kind of makes it a little easier to manage both things. I don't want a part-time vice president, not to mention the fact that should anything happen to John McCain, a part-time president. In my opinion, these are full time jobs, not work from home jobs, or take two weeks off here and there.
Another claim that she makes is about the luxury jet that she put up on eBay. People have been quoted as saying "yeah she took the governor's plane and put it up on eBay, and you know what, she made a profit." Well, more lies and more half truth. She did put it up on eBay, but the state wouldn't allow them to sell it to the person that won the auction. It was then sold to another person lower than what it was purchased for. Granted, they sold the jet, but she has since billed the state of Alaska $43,000 in transportation costs to fly her family all over the state.
Matt Damon has a few comments about Sarah Palin that I really like.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6urw_PWHYk
Honestly, who do we want our leaders to be? He makes a good point about the fact that she could be president. McCain is 72, granted he could live to be 100, but there is the chance with the history of melanoma, which he has had two bouts of, he could although become incapacitated or die in office. Either way the vice president would then take over. Can we honestly say Palin is ready? Some people attempt to compare Palin to Obama and say that she already has executive experience as governor of Alaska. Yeah, a whole 20 months where she has already engaged in the "self-dealings" that she has been so outspoken against. She has appointed friends to various positions in the government including a high school classmate, Franci Havemeister, to the $95,000 a year to the Agriculture Department. A former real-estate agent, Ms. Havemeister cited her childhood love of cows as a qualification for running the $2 million dollar agency. I guess that's all it takes, know the governor and love cows and you can be the director of the agriculture department. I'm sure there are other people many times over more qualified than her to be director of that department. Also, she attacks her critics and often calls them "haters." More good old down-home slang to spew at the world leaders. According to the New York Times, her staff members studied whether their personal email accounts could be subpoenaed by people seeking public records. Also, as mayor, she quickly fired the town's museum director, John Cooper, saying she was eliminating the job. Days later, Mr. Cooper recalled, a vocal conservative, Steven Stoll, whom Mr. Cooper had a long feud with, said "Gotcha, Cooper and it only cost me a campaign contribution. Further investigation reveals that he did contribute to Ms. Palin's campaign and was please that she fired Mr. Cooper. Nice, gotta love it. She also used city money to buy a white Suburban for the mayor's use. Keep in mind, this is not a town like Janesville, Beloit or Madison, this is a town of 7000 people.
After she was mayor, she was appointed to the $125,000 a year position as chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. PTA, city council, mayor of a town of 7000, and she's qualified to be chairman of an oil and gas conservation commission?
And for all you single issue voters that think that your single issue is so important that it trumps everything else that goes on in the world think about this. Politicians cater to you, they know who you are and they will fill you with everything that you want to her. Personally, I like to look at all of the issues and choose which ones are closest to mine. This is kind an extreme example, but there are people who would vote for a candidate solely for the reason that they are pro-life, which is fine, but at the same time, let's just say that this person wants to start a nuclear war with Iran, does that seem like a fair trade? Great, he's going to push through this anti-abortion legislation and then right after he's done with that, he's going to systematically begin the mutually assured destruction of the entire human race. I loved this issue when I worked at Lear Corporation, there were a large number of people who are so pro-gun they would not even think about a candidate that did not oppose every gun regulation that has ever been opposed. This worked out very well for them because the majority of these people voted for Bush in 2000. Lear was a union shop and I always got a laugh out of the people who would drive to work with "Sportsmen for Bush" stickers on the back of their cars. He hates unions with at passion; he was quoted as saying "Unions undermine the economy." These people that I worked with so loved their guns though that they were passionate about electing him as president solely because of his stance on gun control issues.
A final thought, it is my opinion that anyone who is middle class and votes republican is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders. They don't care about the middle class, to be blunt and stereotypical, but in my opinion it is totally true. John McCain's wife is the heiress of a beer distribution company, the largest in Arizona. She also owns a few other businesses as well; she is very, very wealthy. The beer distribution company itself is worth approximately $300 million a year. Quite frankly, I don't believe them when they say that they've got the finger on the pulse of the nation, we feel your pain, we understand the troubles that you're going through, we know that people have lost their jobs, and are having trouble paying their mortgages. But hey, I'm fine here in my 6000 square foot, $4.7 million dollar condo here in Arizona, oh by the way, it's actually in Cindy's name though. I'll get into it deeper in the McCain segment of this multi-part blog. However, the prime example of the fact the Republicans don't care about us is the fact that the last fundraiser that Sarah Palin held was at and exclusive country club in Canton, Ohio that you could only get into if you were a member of the country club. That just screams arrogance. It says that if you don't have enough money to afford this country club membership, if you aren't on the A-list, you aren't good enough to see our vice presidential nominee speak, let alone contribute to her campaign in person. No, you middle class people, go down to the nearest RNC office and make your campaign contribution there. We'll be here, laughing at your misfortunes in private, laughing all the way to the bank, with your middle class tax dollars, your measly campaign contributions, and your votes on our ballots because we've already reeled you in, why do we need to keep you, let alone, let you be a member of our exclusive club.
Up next: Obama, Palin, McCain, Bidden and false hope. Part II - Barack Obama.
No comments:
Post a Comment