NOOOOOO!!!!
Oct. 22nd, 2008 03:24 pmSay it isn't so!
Sarah Palin in 2012
No. Nononononononono. We do not need a female George Bush. Give me a smart, fiscally conservative Republican who doesn't resort to lowest common denominator scare tactics and maybe I'll listen. But Sarah Palin?? For president of the United States.
No. Unequivocally NO.
She is not a feminist and she has ruined Alaska in the press. No.
I say no.
If I say no enough times, do you think this will stop it from being so?
Sarah Palin in 2012
No. Nononononononono. We do not need a female George Bush. Give me a smart, fiscally conservative Republican who doesn't resort to lowest common denominator scare tactics and maybe I'll listen. But Sarah Palin?? For president of the United States.
No. Unequivocally NO.
She is not a feminist and she has ruined Alaska in the press. No.
I say no.
If I say no enough times, do you think this will stop it from being so?
no subject
Date: 2008-10-22 10:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-22 10:57 pm (UTC)no
no
no
no
no
no
HELL NO
no subject
Date: 2008-10-22 10:57 pm (UTC)Months ago you were excited at the possibility that Palin could be picked. What changed your mind?
no subject
Date: 2008-10-22 11:11 pm (UTC)I want some one smarter and more informed than me in the White House.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-22 11:19 pm (UTC)We elect these people, very intelligent, they go to all the right schools and are well-spoken, well-traveled, most of them worked in a profession (Dr. Lawyer, etc) etc....and then we all bitch because they are so removed from the normal experiences and needs of the average American that they have no idea how to govern for the people. They have no empathy with us, no true understanding of how their decisions affect us.
I want someone just like me, came from nothing, didn't go to the ivy league schools, works at a "regular" job. And then I want to them to listen and take information in from their advisors and make their decision - as an average American.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-22 11:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-22 11:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-23 12:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-23 12:30 am (UTC)Experience doesn't hurt, not at all. I'm a fan of experience which is part of why I dislike that Obama was the pick for the Dems - he has been in political office for the same number of years as Palin - and I wish it would have been H. Clinton.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-23 04:12 am (UTC)When the two moved up to their respective next levels, Palin was governing 680,000 people in Alaska; Obama, for his part, was one of two senators representing 12,800,000 people.
It seems to me that there's a pretty enormous difference in the size of government that the two have been involved in up til now.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-23 02:21 pm (UTC)Don't make me defend Palin!
no subject
Date: 2008-10-23 02:40 pm (UTC)I think my comparison held up better when I was comparing being mayor of Wassila with being any kind of state-level elected official in Illinois...the difference in constituency sizes is 100:1...just staggering.
Since I don't know much about how they governed their respective constituencies back then, I'm left comparing populations. Somehow, I just think it's specious to say that, because they've technically been in elected office the same number of years, that the experience gap is a wash.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-23 02:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-29 05:36 pm (UTC)That's not at all to disqualify Alaskans from Federal office! I'd have to disqualify New Yorkers by that logic too. But cosmopolitanism matters, and maybe it matters more when you're from someplace so exceptional.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-23 12:00 am (UTC)I went to an Ivy League school and I'm a high school teacher who does some part-time singing at Catholic weddings and funerals. We struggle to pay our bills and live in a raised ranch. You don't get much more regular than that.
And I want someone who knows more than I do about how to be a president. I want someone like me as a state rep, state senator, even in Congress. But I want a president who's got more expertise than I.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-23 12:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-23 12:25 am (UTC)If the general concensus is that "regular" Americans do not have the expertise to be President, then they don't have the expertise to choose a President, either. Our entire government is founded on the idea that average Americans can and should run our government in all areas. During the time of our first three Presidents one of the raging debates was how to keep a aristocracy from forming in the USA. (Meaning it wasn't based on birth, but on social class, social or educational clubs a person belonged to, work positions, etc)
A President doesn't (and couldn't) know everything about everything. They are like the CEO of a company. The CEO is good at leadership (getting the most out of his/her people, putting the right people into the right place, keeping morale up) and decision making (seeking out information from people you trust and then making your own decision) But the CEO isn't an expert on any one thing. They don't have time. That's what they have experts for, they look at the smaller pieces of the picture. The CEO can see the whole picture, but can't really get into the nitty gritty details.
I think we do a grave disservice to ourselves and people running for office when we expect them to be expert in every area - we expect them to be master tacticians, instead of master strateticians. We expect too much of the wrong things and not enough of the right things.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-23 01:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-23 05:00 am (UTC)For instance, I know that McCain would partially or totally privatize health care and social security, despite that I can't write a single health-related piece of legislation (reading the Congressional Record is sobering). Also for instance, although I can't tell the writings of an activist judge from those of a strict constructionist, I know Palin will do everything she can to outlaw abortion and otherwise represent evangelical conservative social values.
Some presidents are like the CEO of a company. It has been referred to as the CEO model of presidency. George W. Bush is one of those people. They said when he was elected, "It doesn't matter if he doesn't know what everything means. He'll have smart people around him who have the expertise, and he'll be the decision maker." Bill Clinton, by contrast, was an "All roads go through me" kind of president, wanting to know as much as possible about all subjects. Not everyone has the energy and curiosity to pull that off, but I don't like the diminished personal responsibility that the President has had these last 8 years, saying too readily that he didn't know exactly what was going on. Also, I think there's a contagious effect: If it's not okay for the president to be smarter than me, why is it okay for his/her advisor's to be smarter than me? Why are they allowed to have the expertise?
The parents I know have universally said that nothing could have prepared them for parenthood. I believe that. Regardless, they all saved money, took Lamaze classes or yoga, talked to a doctor and/or a midwife, and generally did everything in their power to become more prepared than they were nine months earlier. Just as taking all those measures made them more ready to be parents than someone who blew all their money and stuck their head in the sand, people who get experience early on juggling multiple life-or-death government problems are more prepared to hold elected office than those who don't. Without taking anything away from the basic right of everyone to run for office, I readily acknowledge the achievements of those who took poli sci and show a talent for leadership.
Years ago, I played a video game that simulated being the president of a small Central American country. It was _so_difficult._ The Soviets wanted to give me tractors, but the Americans wanted to pay me not to take the tractors. Leaks seemed to spring up all over the place, with demonstrations outside the palace every month. Obama may be better at this game than I am--at least I sure hope he is--but I figure I'm a better graphic artist than him. So I don't begrudge some people being better at politics than others.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-23 02:24 pm (UTC)I have heard from Alaskans that while Palin is very effective at getting things done, she has no intellectual curiosity.... in effect, she's much like Bush that way.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-22 11:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-22 11:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-22 11:32 pm (UTC)Palin's just shy of two years as governor, and already a bipartisan investigation has found her to have abused her power. By the time 2012 rolls around, she will have lost that America's-darling charm faster than a child star who knocks over a Kwikee Mart, and will have been in office (or out of it) long enough to have built up a record people can point to. It's easier to capture people's imaginations when you're a blank slate.
Looking past her gender and her folksiness, she is simply the most hard-line socially conservative candidate, as well as the least-experienced one, to get this far in a presidential election that I can think of. That won't appeal to the population as a whole if she tries to go it alone.
She's also too gaffe-prone to survive a brutal general election at the top of the ticket. If she lacks Obama's poise or Bill Clinton's charisma, then even if she studies up, no one will be able to miss her stance on abortion or her abuse of executive power.
Conservative pundits are smoking the pipe when they talk about Palin in 2012. Sure doesn't say anything good about the state of McCain's campaign if they're already looking past him.
Coming out from hiding?
Date: 2008-10-22 11:38 pm (UTC)Re: Coming out from hiding?
Date: 2008-10-23 03:57 am (UTC)Re: Coming out from hiding?
Date: 2008-10-23 02:25 pm (UTC)Hi
Date: 2008-10-24 12:48 am (UTC)Re: Hi
Date: 2008-10-24 04:31 am (UTC)Re: Hi
Date: 2008-10-29 05:39 pm (UTC)I gave a Powerpoint presentation in total silence.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-22 11:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-23 01:00 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-23 04:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-23 07:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-23 02:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-23 02:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-23 02:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-23 07:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-23 01:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-23 02:28 pm (UTC)Perhaps the rest of world just isn't willing to hope too much? Much like the pessimistic "liberal elitists" I know over here.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-23 04:02 pm (UTC)That's probably a big part of it; I remember the coverage in 2004 being much more positive, so there's likely some element of trying to cushion the potential blow this time around.