#1 · Sep 04, 2008 09:38 UTC
These are my reasons not to even consider Palin for the job of second in line to the old guy, since some people here seem to think this is about something else.
She will not protect the First Amendment. When she was mayor of Wassilla, Alaska, she attempted to get the town librarian to remove books from the library that she considered to be unfit for public reading. When the librarian refused, she fired her, and only the town banding together and petitioning for the librarian to remain in the job made her rescind the pink slip. This is well documented, just Google Palin and banned books.
"God" leads her in politics, like it did George W. Bush before her. In June she spoke to the Wasilla Assembly of God, and said it was "Gods will" that the federal government contribute to a $30 billion gas pipeline she wants built in Alaska. Also, in that same appearance, she said that the war in Iraq was "a task that is from God."
An extension of the previous point: she is anti-science. And what I mean by that, is that she does not adhere to scientific principles that are well-understood and well-documented.
Examples of this: she supports teaching Creationism in schools, and she supports abstinence-only sex education (even though all evidence collected so far shows that it does not work as well as other forms of sex education).
Can we afford to fall even further behind in the sciences? I don't think so. What the Bush administration has done to science in this country is one of the truly appalling defeats for progress in the history of this country. She would continue that legacy, and for that reason, anyone who believes science should guide our quest for knowledge over religion should think long and hard about her positions.
She is an opportunist, not a reformer. When she speaks about how she "said no to the bridge to nowhere" to lay her claim to be Ms. Anti-Earmark, remember that she supported that "bridge to nowhere"--even ran on a platform supporting it, when she was running for governor--and only after Congress had already dropped the project, did she make her famous statement.
And, remember that she actually hired a lobbyist to get her 5,000 person town MORE federal earmarks. And under her, her town got $27 million from the feds in earmarks. Many of which made John McCain's lists of "shameful" earmarks. Now that she is McCain's VP choice, she's against the system. But she certainly wasn't when it was convenient to her.
She belonged to the Alaskan Independence Party, a political party that espoused the secession of her state from the Union. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's treason. At the very least, it shows she doesn't have a whole lot of respect for the idea of the country, if it comes before the aims of her state. Certainly, I've espoused California's secession, but I am voting for President of the entire country. I can't possibly support someone who doesn't like the idea of the United States if it doesn't serve her purposes.
And lastly, she's too normal. Not that there is anything wrong with that, and the Republicans are certainly pushing how she's a normal person with normal problems.
But my attitude towards the presidency has always been that I don't want someone normal to represent our country. I want someone extraordinary. Normal is what I hated about George W. Bush.
I certainly think that Obama, Biden, and, yes, McCain all fit the bill--all extraordinary individuals. Palin does not. There are literally thousands of people with normal, troubled lives and as much experience as she has to be president. On the stage at the convention before her, two women (!) spoke who were far more extraordinary than Palin. One was Meg Whitman, former CEO of eBay, and one was Carly Fiorina, former CEO of Hewlett-Packard. Both women are extraordinary, and unfortunately, both women are pro-choice, and therefore not an option for McCain's nutty right-wing base.
So there you have it, the case against Palin, without using any of the "intrusive" media bullshit.
Examples of this: she supports teaching Creationism in schools, and she supports abstinence-only sex education (even though all evidence collected so far shows that it does not work as well as other forms of sex education).
Can we afford to fall even further behind in the sciences? I don't think so. What the Bush administration has done to science in this country is one of the truly appalling defeats for progress in the history of this country. She would continue that legacy, and for that reason, anyone who believes science should guide our quest for knowledge over religion should think long and hard about her positions.
And, remember that she actually hired a lobbyist to get her 5,000 person town MORE federal earmarks. And under her, her town got $27 million from the feds in earmarks. Many of which made John McCain's lists of "shameful" earmarks. Now that she is McCain's VP choice, she's against the system. But she certainly wasn't when it was convenient to her.
But my attitude towards the presidency has always been that I don't want someone normal to represent our country. I want someone extraordinary. Normal is what I hated about George W. Bush.
I certainly think that Obama, Biden, and, yes, McCain all fit the bill--all extraordinary individuals. Palin does not. There are literally thousands of people with normal, troubled lives and as much experience as she has to be president. On the stage at the convention before her, two women (!) spoke who were far more extraordinary than Palin. One was Meg Whitman, former CEO of eBay, and one was Carly Fiorina, former CEO of Hewlett-Packard. Both women are extraordinary, and unfortunately, both women are pro-choice, and therefore not an option for McCain's nutty right-wing base.
So there you have it, the case against Palin, without using any of the "intrusive" media bullshit.