Palin by Comparison

It was said by people smarter than me that "the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he doesn't exist." I’m reminded of this quote by the mediacane surrounding Sarah Palin. You know Sarah Palin. She’s the sitting governor of Alaska and the Republican nominee for President. Have to say it’s pretty ballsy of the GOP to run a woman when even the Democrats wouldn’t do that. What? John McCain? Really? 
But seriously folks…
The other interesting quote that comes to mind regards to Sarah Palin is "there is no there there." Or perhaps I should say, "Move along; nothing to see here." I do agree with the Obama campaign taking the high road when it comes to Palin’s family. I don’t agree with the mainstream media taking the same route. Whatever happened to the "gutter press?" I miss those guys. Anyway, a few days after Palin’s nomination, a co-worker observed that just a few years ago, a pregnant, unwed, teenage daughter would lead inevitably to one conclusion: bad parenting. And while those of us without pregnant, unwed, teenage daughters should not throw stones, it should be fair to note that it is Republicans who campaign based on values—family values—and who claim "values voters" as a key element of their base. In that context, it seems a question that deserves an answer. You can’t manage your family and you’re ready to be President?

But asking why Sarah Palin couldn’t keep track of her daughter or doubting her foreign policy chops despite her state’s proximity to Russia or remarking that she ran the City of Wassila with the subtlety of Joe Stalin and the fiscal discipline of Scrooge McDuck, and as governor of Alaska was ready to take the money for the "Bridge to Nowhere" before she rejected the money for the "Bridge to Nowhere" but maybe kept some of it or that shooting animals with a high-powered rifle from an airplane is hardly sporting – deep breath – well, that would be mean, inappropriate, misogynistic, dishonorable, and disrespectful.

Mean, inappropriate, misogynistic, dishonorable, and disrespectful… Isn’t that the very definition of politics?

Meanwhile, Rome burns. A foreign policy subsumed by military adventurism, an economy in a death spiral, and weather that seems conjured by an angry, Sumerian god all clamor for attention. Receiving none, they continue unchecked to savage the future of our children and grandchildren.

Not to mention my investment portfolio. Aren’t Republicans supposed to be good with the economy? I’m sorry but whoever was behind all of this is a criminal. They have stolen the future from all of us. I say twenty to life for each and every person on the planet. And yes, I mean we should lock up their corpse for the millennium.

But I digress…

Never mind about Sarah Palin’s favorite shade of lipstick. How Barack Obama or John McCain will deal with America’s place in the world and Americans’ place in their home towns is what matters.

Not that it matters that it matters.

Palin’s nomination was not about any of the daunting issues that face America and Americans. A working knowledge of world geography is not foreign policy experience. Running up $20,000,000 in debt running a town of under 10,000 people does not demonstrate fiscal responsibility. Opposing sex education when the evidence supporting it is sitting across from you at the kitchen table may be a private matter, but it also demonstrates an unwillingness to adjust policy based on the discovery of new facts. Thinking that global warming is a natural phenomena and thinking you can do something about it are two dots that simply cannot be connected. Palin’s nomination was nothing more than cynical, politically-motivated pandering to the God, Guns and Gays crowd – I mean, "values voters" – in the Republican Party.

Is it mean, inappropriate, misogynistic, dishonorable, and disrespectful to describe Palin’s nomination as cynical?

Consider this…

In the wake of the Charlie Gibson interview, in which Palin proved that at the very least, she is a quick study, much has been made of her lack of familiarity with "the Bush Doctrine." Conservative Pundits and Bobbleheads have locked arms and proclaimed that none of them knew what Charlie Gibson was talking about – what is this Bush Doctrine you speak of? Indeed, George Will on ABC’s "This Week" claimed that he would need further clarification before he could answer the question. This despite the fact that numerous magazine articles and books – many with the phrase "Bush Doctrine" in their titles – have been published in the last six years, despite the more than 700,000 hits you will get on Google for "the Bush Doctrine," despite George Will’s own description recorded in December of 2001.

That there is a lack of consensus or common understanding of anything that George W. Bush has said or done during his two terms in office is hardly the point.

The point is that Palin’s handlers didn’t even think to prep her for the question; they weren’t concerned with her ability to address the most disastrous foreign policy change in this country’s history.

Of course, Charlie Gibson was simply being mean, inappropriate, misogynistic, dishonorable, and disrespectful in even asking the question.
~September 16, 2008