*Editors note – This guest post comes from a good friend of mine, Holly Davis. Holly is the Executive Director of the Indiana Leadership Forum and is Vice President of Gauge Market Research.*
I am thrilled with the announcement of Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin as McCain’s Vice Presidential choice. It is a return to the McCain of yester-year, the maverick we have heard so much about who seemed to be missing from the campaign most of this year. His choice is bold and telling. He looked outside the “usual suspects” for someone of a younger generation with executive level managerial experience. Someone who is keenly in touch with the American family, the consequences of sending our sons and daughters to war, and who knows the needs of the States.
Given how important State’s rights and government closet to the people are to Republicans, Palin is exactly the right choice. Her résumé is impressive: from council member to Mayor to Governor in record time. She is, quite frankly, a super star, working wonders in a state know for having more caribou than people.
To the question of her experience, I ask how many of us have experience declaring war, sending a budget to congress, or developing national monetary policies? I would venture to say not many, including the others running for office. What Palin brings to the table, and ultimately what we need in a President or Vice President, is the ability to assemble a team of advisors and staff who do have that experience. As a Mayor and Governor, Palin has the experience of creating an administration. No one else on either ticket can say that. Probably just as important to executive experience, however, is the ability to make thoughtful but quick decisions. With 5 children, no one doubts this lady knows how to quickly assess information and make decisions. Additionally, at a time when energy costs are souring, she has direct experience developing energy policies. She has also been commander in chief of the National Guard.
Let us not overlook the different perspective a woman brings to the table. Women fundamentally look at issues differently than a man. Palin will bring a no nonsense collaborative approach to leadership. She will be a great partner to McCain, bringing a balance much needed in political discourse today.
Sarah Palin has reenergized many Republican women who have felt shut out of the debate this year. We now have someone on our side that we can tell our daughters about. This may not seem like that big of a deal to some of you, but it is a very big deal to women. We have been waiting for this all of our lives. We have been patiently supporting Republican candidates in the hopes that one day one of ours would rise to the top. You had better believe we want this woman to succeed.
Finally, anyone who wrangle 5 children while succeeding in politics and keeping her marriage together has my vote and my respect. Go Sarah!
Come on…she is running on family values..which she obviously doesn’t teach in her own home not will she allow it to be taught in in the schools. If you want to be vice president then you should practice what you preach…it isn’t about her stepping up to the plate and having the child……it is about what the Republicans preach but never live by. How many of them have cheated on their wives but always have excuses…One is McCain…another the NEWT..we are suppose to believe this family value stuff but they never live up to it. Stop blaming the democrats..you made your bed lie in it!!!!!!!!!!!
Curious comment. It looks like we have a good bunch of folk registering like they do at RedState to make drive by comments.
Why would you say she is “running on family values”? What she is “running on” and the reason that she was picked is that she is a conservative who has been demonstrated to deal very well with corruption. Now part of that conservatism IS valuing life and promoting abstinence. Apparently what you construe as “family values” is teaching your children to use contraception. Not sure where that “value” comes from. I guess from the same place that “values” abortion–I’m sorry–the right to choose.
You do not have to be perfect in order to call for ethical and moral behavior. Last time I looked, there was only one perfect person and He will killed almost 2,000 years ago. So if you can’t be “hypocritical”, then there could be no call for responsible behavior.
I don’t recall hearing Newt’s discussion of the subject. But McCain has not made excuses. He said that he was wrong.
This post, in particular, has not blamed Democrats for anything. It is extolling the virtues of Governor Palin. Quite frankly, the Democrats are the ones that are being judgmental and intolerant here.
oh Yeah that is what democrats are known for judgmental and intolerant…look in the mirror. The Alaskan governor…when she was mayor of a SMALL town..she received 26 million dollars in earmarks…Just what we need another Stevens. I thought mccain was against that..By the way I registered to see what you people are talking about…I know it is scary to hear from people who live in the real world…SCARY
As far as the last perfect person…I thought you were the last
BY THE WAY ABORTION ISN’T MY CHOICE BUT I DON’T FEEL I HAVE THE RIGHT TO TELL SOMEONE ELSE HOW TO LIVE. OBVIOUSLY YOU DO.
SO NO NOT ALL PRO-CHOICE PEOPLE BELIEVE IN ABORTION
I love how you think we’re the ones being judgmental when all you’ve done has been judging. You don’t know us. You’re targeting a stereotype which you have bought into. That would make you the judgmental one.
And I love how you gloss over her time as governor and attack her record as mayor. Classy. You like to look over the fact that’s she’s actually brought fiscal reform to Alaska and has fought against Ted Stevens more often as governor, than she obviously did as mayor. But far be it from you to look at the whole record and just pinpoint on one area.
What?!?! Does Sankyo Pharma, which is where all your comments are coming from so we can assume you work there, know how much you’re trolling our site? Glad they’re getting their money’s worth out of you.
Seriously, I love how this enrages you b/c it show liberals like you just how intolerant and arrogant you are.
Hey…I am far from enraged…just glad I don’t know you or have anything to do with you. Obviously you can’t have a conversation without personnel attacks…which I find typical for your intolerant views.
As Governor? What has she done but use her power to try to get her soon to be ex brother in law fired. if he was so evil and guilty of what she says he did to her sister and nephew why isn’t he in jail.
Denise, (or should I say, DENISE), I never said or implied that I was perfect or anywhere near it. There are dozens of people who can attest to my weaknesses–and that is only counting those who generally support me.
However, I do have various opinions. I do, as much as I can, base those opinions on as many facts and observations as I can make. And I also live in the “real world”. I work 8 to 5. My wife works in the evenings so that our child care is minimal and to help pay the bills. Having a position that disagrees with yours does not make me “not in the real world”.
The distinction between being pro-choice and pro-abortion is a straw man argument from my point of view. I could make the same argument about murder of another adult. I could say “I don’t choose to murder others, but I don’t have the right to tell someone else how to live.” That is an absurd argument. I would be considered a loon if I pushed that argument and followed it up with “Not all pro-murder-choice people believe in murder.” But it is no different than the pro-choice argument.
The fundamental question of abortion is whether or not a fetus is human and if it is separate from the mother.
Regarding Democrat tolerance: Palin is quickly becoming a textbook case of how intolerant the left is. Their dealings with President Bush has not shown any sense of tolerance. The attitude toward Christians in general and Social Conservatives specifically shows no tolerance. To claim Democrats are the party of tolerance is absurd.
And just so you know, you don’t have to register to “see what you people are talking about”, only to comment.
I love how you have hijacked the word christian..
Christianity…commendably decent or generous
Why don’t you find a way to help these young people that turn to “murder” as you so eloquently put it. You make it sound like they get pregnant just so they can have an abortion. I hope you don’t really believe that. For some people maybe that is their only way to deal with it. DENISE
After the allegedly improper firing of Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) appointed former Kenai Police Chief Chuck Kopp to the post.
Kopp served just two weeks this summer as the head of law enforcement in Alaska, resigning on July 25, after a past complaint of sexual harassment and a subsequent letter of reprimand surfaced in news reports.
But Palin made sure he had a soft fall from grace, giving him a $10,000 severance package for just two weeks served.
While Palin has conceded she was aware of the past complaint against Kopp, she claims that she thought the complaint had been unsubstantiated and was unaware of the letter of reprimand.
Denise, Christian, according to Merriam Webster (and just about anyone else that I know of) is defined as, “one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ”. Your definition may be generally accurate, but it does not define what it means to be a Christian or the religion of Christianity.
How do you know that I am not helping? Goodness sakes, that comment is so full of intolerance and misunderstanding! Christian organizations are full of people supporting crisis pregnancy centers, counseling services, adoption services, Mother’s day out programs, etc., etc.
No they do not get pregnant to have an abortion. That is an awful read of what I wrote and shows that you are projecting your prejudices into the discussion. What I said is that abortion is snuffing out a life and life is worth standing for. To argue that snuffing out a life may be the “only way to deal with it” is grotesque.
Regarding the Monegan situation in Alaska: I don’t have all of the facts on that (and neither do you). But I do know two things:
1. It was a political appointment position. That means that you serve in that position at the discretion of the Governor. If the Governor doesn’t like what you are doing, she has the right to remove you.
2. Monegan was offered another position, but refused it. So in my book, that isn’t even a firing.
Actually that is funny…I did get the definition out of Websters..
On the Monegan situation–how do you know i don’t have all the facts? Maybe I am the investigator of the situation. But if I was—I certainly would look at all the facts and not ignore the law and say oh well it is up to the discretion of the governor.
I like that “political appointment position. That means that you serve in that position at the discretion of the Governor. If the Governor doesn’t like what you are doing, she has the right to remove you.”
Isn’t that the same comment that was used by the Bush admin in defense of the attorney general that fired the federal prosecutors that didn’t go far enough in false prosecutions of political opponents.
Funny how all of the arguments have the same defense? Odd huh?
Yes, you used the Meriam Webster definition #3 under adjective when I was clearly using it as a noun. Great job.
I think Josh pointed out where you are coming from which looks more like a Pharmaceutical company than a government investigator.
Actually Bush SHOULD have used the argument that they were political appointments, but he did not. It was the argument that Clinton used when he came in and fired ALL (but 1 as I recall) of the Federal prosecutors when he came into office.
Just because an argument has been used doesn’t mean that it is wrong.
excuses
way to prove your point DENISE-I wish I could win every debate by saying the the points raised my the “opposition” were “excuses”. The problem that I believe you fail to recognize that you have taken a very “micro” view of things on the whole As asked above, who is perfect?
the last perfect person was crucified. However you have taken the general frustration shared by many Americans, and, instead of looking for soulutions or examining the qualifications and track record of ALL candidates objectively (that includes the democrats too–you know the biblical addage about removing the plank in your own eye before removing the speck in your neighbor’s?), you choose to generalize, sterotype, and broad-brush all conservatives or republicans as gun-toting, flannel wearing, banjo-playing, red-meat eating,intolerant bigots, whose sole purpose in life is to run the gays out, cut down every tree, and establish a dictatorship of christianity that will rule for generations insuring a second inquisition. A bit far fteched to be sure, but the type of fear mongering that is spread amongst those on the left side of the aisle is just as bad as the rumors about the socialists, pinko commies, pink-beret anti-war types, bucket o’ blood throwing peta freaks (peta for me–People who Eat Tasty Animals), mother nature worshipping tree hugging hippies, mother nature worshipping whale huggers, we wanna help everyone so lets spend all our hard-earned tax dollars and give it to professional couch potato left wing liberals.
To be certain, those types exist on both sides, however, they are a minority, and while I may not necessarily agree with the left on the whole, I respect their right to an opinion. Because, let’s face it-they have to live here too and they want to make the U.S. a better place too.
So hit the “zoom out” button on your philosophy the try to see the big picture.
Wow…hit a nerve..scratchman ?
“To quote you…A bit far fetched to be sure, but the type of fear mongering that is spread amongst those on the left side of the aisle”…
I think you have your aisle crossed..Lats time we had a raise in the threat level for potential terror attacks…I believe was when Georgie Porgy was behind in the 2004 election. Can’t wait to see what the date is he pulls the next one out….
LAST WORD….I know you are upset by that…As long as Palin makes “family values” a national platform, she will offer her family as an example of these values and open to scrutiny.
And we come full circle. “As long as Palin makes ‘family values’ a national platform…”
Once again, she has not done so. McCain has not done so. It is the left who is making it the issue. Since Governor Palin is a conservative woman, she must be running on this issue. Only problem is that you are making it up and thinking back to previous elections.
Largely, a VP candidate runs on the platform of the Presidential candidate. While Senator McCain does have a fairly conservative social stand, his “family values” is not what he is talking about. Let’s look at his site: http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/
The issues that he lists (in order) are:
Economy, Energy, National Security, Health Care, Iraq, Climate Change (hiss), Veterans, Immigration, Education, 2nd Amendment, Judicial Philosophy, Technology, Fighting Crime, Natural Heritage, Agricultural Policies, The Sanctity of Life, Space Program, and Ethics Reform. Humm. No Family Values?
So what is REALLY going on is that people who are opposed to Governor Palin because of her conservative stands–particularly in the area of social conservatives–are MAKING UP her platform for her and then attacking that platform! And better yet, using that false platform as an excuse to engage in ad hominem attacks! Outstanding! It is showing true colors.
my point is, (as it appears you didn’t grasp it the first time) DENISE, is the very intolerance which you are railing against, is what you are choosing to employ in order to prove your point(s). one more time–remove the plank from you own eye, before you worry about the speck in your neighbors…
“I think you have your aisle crossed..Lats time we had a raise in the threat level for potential terror attacks…I believe was when Georgie Porgy was behind in the 2004 election. Can’t wait to see what the date is he pulls the next one out….”
missing the point again (let’s hope you don’t hunt moose-ha ha) fear-mongering in its many forms occurrs on both sides of the aisle. Those who participate in such things are a small part of the whole. it’s not fair to judge one entire group of people based on the actions of small factions (hey that rhymed) within it.
*sigh–any more questions?
just a note..you are pretty witty even if I don’t agree with you…good luck
Isn’t Ron Paul a true republican. Leaving religion out of the picture. I love that guy…straight forward ..tells you his position with out regret. I don’t agree with his politics but I respect the guy for sticking to his guns and telling you how he feels. I actually look forward to hearing him speak.
Most of us would say, true Libertarian (without malice). His policies are closer to the Libertarian Party’s. Those are fairly close to conservative/Republican views and so he can operate fairly well within the Republican Party–it is just difficult to get into party leadership.
The main difference to me between Ron Paul and conservatives is that he is too isolationist (sorry guys, I mean non-interventionist). For some on the social conservatism side of things, Paul draws his line of where the government should intervene in social issues at a different place than what social conservatives do.
Many conservatives were also somewhat uncomfortable with the group of followers that he had in that there were a lot of “truthers” (i.e. those with a laundry list of conspiracies regarding government). He claimed not to believe them, but he never seemed to discourage it.
But Paul seems to be genuinely a man of integrity and straight forward to the point of being overly blunt at times.
DENISE, thank you for the compliment, although I have to give credit where credit is due, I got it from my mom…(don’t tell my dad)
I think there is too much at stake here to reinvigorate the culture wars (abortion, marriage issues, who’s more right than who). I think we all need to come to understand how divided the country is ideologically and instead of hurling insults at one another and arguing about who’s more intolerant, I think we have to agree to disagree and find better ways to communicate with each other without all the unnecessary emotional trappings.
We have more in common than we might think. For example, fundamentally we all want a better America and we are very passionate about what that means for ourselves but we simply don’t agree how to get there. For me, I would like the basics–freedom, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Remember those? Which by the way, have been seriously eroded in the last 8 years. But these values translate into something different for everybody and that’s what makes this country awesome. But now so many people are losing their jobs, their homes, working 2 and 3 jobs just to keep a float and what are we doing?? Fighting about abortion and who’s better than who? We can do better than this and we all are better than this.
I’m nervous to have a portion of the electorate (regardless which side of the isle) only care about wedge issues. We will never get anything meaningful done that way. Granted this is idealistic but if we can have a substantive discussion about possible solutions to our problems rather than letting the incumbent politicians play on the emotions of both liberal and conservatives alike we might have more potential to unify ourselves. That would scare the hell out of Washington politicians because keeping us ideologically divided is how the power structure maintains its integrity in DC. It’s the oldest trick in the book—divide and conquer–only this time it’s not militarily, it’s culturally and the politicians can hide easily in the cracks of culture.
The culture wars do not have to be reinvigorated. They have been going very strongly for quite a while. They are being reinvigorated by wacko court decisions that override legislatures and the will of the people. You need to understand that the “culture wars” are a significant area of import regarding what a government does.
Now, your basics are good. But the quote you are missing a bit is “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. Freedom and liberty are roughly the same and life is arguably the important part. That “life” statement is why these culture wars come into the discussion–e.g. abortion.
But let me point out where you get way off base: “But now so many people are losing their jobs, their homes, working 2 and 3 jobs just to keep a float and what are we doing?” Well, let’s apply the standard of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Do these issues impact life? No. Do they impact liberty? Well, that is an interesting discussion, but ultimately they do not. Why? You lose a job–that has to do with the liberty of the people that employed you. To force them to keep you employed is abridging their liberty. Pursuit of happiness? In America you can start a company or find another job or PURSUE many lines of action toward happiness.
In short, the issue that you bring up has nothing to do with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But I agree that it is a good lens to look at public policy.
Your point is well-taken regarding the culture wars stewing and boiling for a long time but what I’m referring to specifically is the political re-igniting and re-positioning of these political hot buttons, not because they might be fundmentally right or wrong–I think that will always be a matter of opinion and conjecture–but because of their employment solely for power plays and political gains in the political sphere.
Yes, I agree that the culture wars have been with us for a while and will continue to be played out on the government’s stage–but if we are losing fundamental American values, such as our ability to access that freedom, to have privacy, to not have government intruding on every aspect of our lives, and to wind up with horrid policies like warrantless wire tapping, suspension of habaeus corpus, torturing for information, RealID etc., what good is looking to wedge issues going to do us? Clearly we are spinning our wheels here don’t you think?
I’m not clear what your point is about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and how it impacts our everyday world. But I can say this–without the means to support oneself, with the reduction of the middle class and shrinking opportunities due to so many factors (i.e., the cost of education, sending jobs overseas, over-taxation of small businesses, etc.,) what one can do is severely limiting. I think that the truer statement is that some people are freer and can PURSUE more options than others. I would like to see more of a John Rawls solution where all boats can be reasonably lifted instead having most boats crash to the bottom like we’ve been experiencing lately.
Hmmm … comparing RealID to waterboarding. That’s a first.
Though I will agree with one – and only one – part of your statement: “over-taxation of small businesses”. As one of the directors here is a small business owner he can definitely vouch for how business – small or large – is overtaxed. You do realize the United State has the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world?
To me it is interesting that it is the left (and really the media) that is introducing the wedge issues rather than McCain and Palin. For instance, pro-life issues have not been a very vocal plank, but if asked, that is where they come down on things. But the issue keeps coming up. I guess the mere existence of Trig gives the issue a face.
My point on life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is that it is inconsistent a government meddling in the economy (or with business regulation or …) to make sure that jobs don’t go overseas or that we in some unknown way “lift all the boats.” My point is that any government program ends up infringing on the liberty and ability of the pursuit of happiness of its citizens. When we use tax policy to force companies to use more expensive labor here in the U.S. rather than to go where the labor is more efficient, we infringe on the liberty of the owners of the business. ANY tax is an infringement on the liberty of the taxpayer. There is a tradeoff that the founders anticipated–there is a certain amount of liberty to be given up in exchange for a stable, protected society.
I am arguing that the elimination of habaeus corpus for fewer than 500 enemy combatants in order to keep our troops safe in the battlefield is far less onerous than infringing on the liberty of every American by requiring that a certain percentage of our gasoline sales must have ethanol blended into it; or that we will confiscate the income of one group of Americans to hand it over to another group of Americans; or any of thousands of other little liberties that we have given up through our government.
Click for more info
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Recent Posts