Sarah Plain and Tall

McCain picked up on a need and filled it!  Not only is she popular and successful, Gov. Palin is foremost a problem solver.   A woman with a track record to prove it.  It's a winner.

Walt,

Not much in the way of surprises here.  I haven't said anything about Gov. Palin yet for the same reason many have not.  I know next to nothing about her except she is the first VP nominee with whom I'd love to have a date.  Must be all that fresh Alaskan air.

On the serious side, my wife & I have been having reaction discussions @ her & they pretty much echo the discussions we've seen in the media.  They center around three main items.

One, if McCain & the Republicans made Obama's lack of experience one of their attack subjects, why pick someone with the same lack of experience.  My wife disagrees with me somewhat on this one.

Two, ditto on the reaction of women voters.  Here, it's split.  I say that while yes, some women are still going to be PO'd @ Obama not considering Hillary, there will be many more women out there who are totally against Palin's anti choice record on abortion, which is the same as McCain's.  My wife thinks differently.

Three, by all accounts, she is a Republican, complete with Rep. ideologies, but is not afraid to speak her mind in opposition.

Then there's the rest.  Biggest question, why her?  To court the female vote taking advantage of the women dissatisfaction with Obama not picking Hillary?  There has to be any number of female legislators with more experience than Palin.  And let me preface any more comments by saying that I haven't got anything against Palin. I don't know enough @ her to have anything negative to say.  McCain is a different story. 

Does McCain think that she'll reflect his attitude on governing, ie. have another 90% pro Bush in the Oval Office?  We just don't know.

So your guess is as good as mine & every one elses.  It will be fun, however, to see what we shall see as this new political soap opera unfolds.  You have my word on it.  JATFUR.

Rich K

I think it may be a brilliant move myself.

From what I have seen and heard thus far. She is a strong reformist, debator, bussiness woman, dispises curruption, pro-life, pro-second amendment, for reducing taxes, for drilling for more oil now, the list goes on.

I also think she will in fact take many many Hillary votes from the dems that wanted a woman President.

In terms of experience she has more excecutive experience then Obama and has an 80% approval rating in Alaska.

Talking on the issue of in-experience we must ask ourselves.

Do we want a President (our number 1) with little experience being trained by our number 2 with more experience.

or

Do we want a President (our number 1) with the most experience, training and guiding our number 2.

If McCain and Palin are elected and prove themselves over the next 4 to 8 years. The American people will know her well and it places her in a great position for the first American Woman President.

The Womans movement will be watching and considering this closley as will all the Hillary fans that feel she was robbed.

Only time will tell, But my hunch is it was Brilliant. 

TRUTHHURTS

Please go to

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

and sign the petition for the Fair Tax Bill. Tell Congress to pass this Bill.

In sixty-five days John McCain or Barack Obama will lay claim to the office of the Presidency of the United States (POTUS).  In sixty-five days, plus one heartbeat, Governor Sarah Palin could be President of the United States.

The Obama Campaign has made great efforts to discredit Governor Palin's readiness to be POTUS.  Fair enough.  The McCain Campaign has said similar things about Senator Obama.

Who is better qualified to be POTUS in sixty-five days or in sixty-five days plus a heartbeat?  That is a fair question for the voters.  

The President is the Chief Executive Officer of the national government.  The President is also the Commander in Chief of the Armed forces.  The President is not a judge.  The President is not a legislator.  Those functions are reserved to the other two branches of government. 

Here is a comparison of Barack Obama (the man who is 65-days from being elected president) and Sarah Palin (the woman who is 65-days and a heartbeat from being President-elect):

1992 - 1996:  Sarah Palin was an elected member of the Wasilla City Council.  As an elected official, she voted on the City's budgets and policies.  She shared direct supervision of the City Attorney and the the City Clerk.  She answered to about 5000 constituents.

During that same period, Barack Obama was a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School. Mr. Obama had no tenure, and thus had no staff.  He answered to the Law School Faculty.

1997 - 2002:   Sarah Palin was elected as Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, which has a Mayor-City Council form of government.  In this form of Government, the Mayor is the Chief Executive Officer over a $13,700,000 City budget which includes management of an airport; the water, sewer, and gas utilities; the Public Works department, the Planning and Zoning Department, the multi-use sports complex, and the City Cemetary.  During her term in office she had 116 members on her staff.

During the same period, Barack Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate.  He served on Committees, including the Chair of the Health & Human Services committee.  As a State Senator, Obama implemented no policies or budgets, although he voted on many.  He had an office staff of 3 individuals, and a committee staff of 11.

2002 - present:  Between 2002 and 2006 Sarah Palin left public office, but continued a form of public service as Chairwoman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.  In 2006 she was elected Governor of Alaska, where she currently manages a budget of $11.3 billion which has a $680 million surplus.  She is commander in chief of the Alaska National guard which is comprised of about 3500 men and women. 

Barack Obama left the Illinois Senate in 2004 after being elected to the US Senate.  As one of 100 Senators, he shares legislative decision-making with 435 members of the House of Representatives.  The 535 members of the Democratic-controlled House and Senate vote on a $3.1 trillion budget which is $500 billion in the red.  Senator Obama is the Chairman of one subcommittee (European Affairs), but has never called that subcommittee into session.  Senator Obama has a staff of eight.  Senator Obama has not commanded any military organization.

Senator Obama's credentials to be the Chief Executive Officer of the United States Government and to be the Commander-in-Chief, appears to be a little thin compared to Governor Palin.  If I were Senator Obama, I would be a little careful about what kind of rocks I was throwing in a glass house.

Mike Kelter

Shocked!! I will admit, but not an "Oh No" shocked. 

More like an "Oh wow, awesome" shocked.

Please go to:

http://spayusa.org/media/pdfs/Cats_Multiply_Pyramid.pdf

http://spayusa.org/media/pdfs/Dogs_Multiply_Pyramid.pdf

I came across an interview in which the person put forth a view I did not consider.  In effec tthe person said that if McCain decided that for women dissappointed that they could not vote for Hillary, any woman would do, is a huge insult to women everywhere.  I didn't see that one coming.  We shall see.

Rich K

Like most people I was shocked at the pick, but immediately recognized the genius in it.  After reading Mike's comparison of Palin and Obama, I think McCain and his advisors are even more genius.  I heard Obama answer a question about VP (pre-Biden) and he said the #1 consideration is that the person be capable of being the POTUS.  That qualification still gives me pause with Palin, but thanks to the media and the campaigns, I'm sure even more info will be forthcoming about Gov. Palin.  I'm going to keep watching - can't wait for the debates to get started - but if the election was tomorrow, I'd vote McCain-Palin in a flash.

As with many things in life, an unexpected surprise is enjoyable. I find the choice by Senator McCain very interesting at the moment. Time will judge whether he made a wise choice. But it certainly is interesting.

Much is being made of Sarah Palin's inexperience. I don't see it as a detriment but a very important selling point. I, along with 70% of the population, am as fed up with things as they stand today precisely because of all the "experience" we are being bludgeoned with. Senator Obama, is a very attractive candidate to me because he has not yet (I believe)  become inured to the incompetence that abounds in Washington today. I have also stated in the past that every president, however "prepared" he may have been for the officce faced challenges unlike his predecessors. JFK, while a mediocre president found the strength to stand up to older and more wiley, not to mention "experienced", leader, Nikita Krushchev and stared him down. No president prior to that had to face possible nuclear armageddon. Precisely because of that we have not had to face it again. Could any other candidate from that era have done the same? Maybe. We'll never know.

Would John McCain be any better than Barack Obama? We'll never know that either. Only one can win and he will bring his own life experiences and judgment with him. I don't think Obama is the savior his acolytes portray him as but I think he is a very good man. I think the same of John McCain. I think both are infinitely superior to W. That's only my opinion. I don't want to belabor the point. 

All that being said (yes, I know I am being verbose) I find the choice of Sarah Palin for VP extremely interesting. She has roughly the same "experience" to be POTUS that Obama has. We will get to know her a little better in the future weeks. I look forwrd to it. I look forward to it, essentially, because it will distract us from the barrage of negativism already being unleashed on the public. I think we agree that in general nobody votes on the basis of a VP pick. However, my one and only trepidation is Joe Biden. I just can't get past how much he reminds me of Spiro Agnew and naturally I need to look even more keenly at the judgements past of Barack Obama. As of now, I still have not committed to either candidate.

 To Mike H, thank you for the kind words. I believe you will be as pleased with your decision to opt out of future arguments with your nemesis as I have in opting out of any CCAC arguments. We are both better off with a book by Christopher Moore. I am glad you enjoyed the ones you read. Try "The Island Of The Sequined Love Nun" next followed by The Stupidest Angel (A Hearwarming Tale Of Christmas Terror). After that go for "Lamb: The Gospel According To Biff, Christs Childhood Pal". (Hint: You will not find any sequins or nuns at all in that book. Go figure.) :>)

Lily's Lore "I don't ever want to be rescued And I don't ever want to be saved I got a feelin' that I'm gonna be alive forever Dancin' on the edge of a grave..." Jim Steinman

Mr Kelter, that was a great post.  There are probably a lot of conservative magazines who would print that. 

     And now to show the reaction of some, this is from the home page of the florida national organization of women

 From the National Organization for Women:

Not Every Woman Supports Women's RightsAugust 29, 2008Statement of NOW PAC Chair Kim Gandy on the Selection of Sarah Palin as John McCain's Vice Presidential Pick    Sen. John McCain's choice of Alaska governor Sarah Palin as his running mate is a cynical effort to appeal to disappointed Hillary Clinton voters and get them to vote, ultimately, against their own self-interest.     Gov. Palin may be the second woman vice-presidential candidate on a major party ticket, but she is not the right woman. Sadly, she is a woman who opposes women's rights, just like John McCain.    The fact that Palin is a mother of five who has a 4-month-old baby, a woman who is juggling work and family responsibilities, will speak to many women. But will Palin speak FOR women? Based on her record and her stated positions, the answer is clearly No.    In a gubernatorial debate, Palin stated emphatically that her opposition to abortion was so great, so total, that even if her teenage daughter was impregnated by a rapist, she would "choose life" -- meaning apparently that she would not permit her daughter to have an abortion.    Palin also had to withdraw her appointment of a top public safety commissioner who had been reprimanded for sexual harassment, although Palin had been warned about his background through letters by the sexual harassment complainant.    What McCain does not understand is that women supported Hillary Clinton not just because she was a woman, but because she was a champion on their issues. They will surely not find Sarah Palin to be an advocate for women.    Sen. Joe Biden is the VP candidate who appeals to women, with his authorship and championing of landmark domestic violence legislation, support for pay equity, and advocacy for women around the world.    Finally, as the chair of NOW's Political Action Committee, I am frequently asked whether NOW supports women candidates just because they are women. This gives me an opportunity to once again answer that question with an emphatic 'No.' We recognize the importance of having women's rights supporters at every level but, like Sarah Palin, not every woman supports women's rights.

      Did you ever read something and get the impression that the author was gritting their teeth as they wrote it?

 Mr. FelixKulpah

Sarah Palin, may be a wonderful pick.  I just don’t know her at all.  I was just caring on a conversation while we were at Angela Corey’s Victory party that we need  someone to give some life and energy to the Republican  ticket.  McCain is smart but his delivery is stale and out dated.  Actually so is the message of most of the parties’ leaders.  We (The Republicans) need a good shot in the arm. 

However, after hearing McCain’s pick I have to admit I was a little taken aback.  If we needed a woman I think we could have found another one.  I was thinking of women like Kay Bailey Huthison, or Condelissa Rice.  This pick makes me think he is trying to out Obama-Obama! Which can’t be done!

 Judith Chapple

Judith,

You mentioned one person I haven't heard mentioned much for the VP choice,  Condi Rice.  Talk about a capable, experienced person & a woman to boot.  I have to wonder why her name wasn't on the top of any candidate's short list?  I don't always agree with all of her views, but to have her name so silent during this process is very curious.

Rich K

I have followed Condi's role on the world stage from the beginning and find her to be an excellent choice. But in following her, she has remarked many times she had no ambition to run for anyhting.

She probably didn't want to have to continually correct people on the proper spelling of her name. (hint, hint)

As For Kay Hutchinson, once again I have to say I have had it with listening to drawling southerners in the White House. We are almost through sixteen years of moronic speech patterns and may some deity save us, enough is enough. I see in todays paper Athena isn't all that busy. Maybe we can get her to lend a hand.

Lily's Lore "I don't ever want to be rescued And I don't ever want to be saved I got a feelin' that I'm gonna be alive forever Dancin' on the edge of a grave..." Jim Steinman

Lily,

Now that you mention it, I do seem to recall Condi mentioning that.  I can respect her decision not to get any dirtier from politics, but on second thought, I think it a waste of talent & experience.

Tsk, tsk on you.  Are you talking about the pagans praying for the statues?  Don't disparage them too much.  After all, millions of people turn to superstition every day in place of rational thinking followed by logical actions.

I don't know if I would come down as hard as you did concerning accents & speech patterns, but it would be close.  And it would cover more than just southern accents.  Even after living down here for 27 years, I still find myself having to listen very carefully to some people.  But maybe they have the same problem with me.  JATFUR.

Rich K

Mrs. Chapple

     My enthusiasm over Palin isn't based very much on rational thinking as to whether she is the best woman and/or best person for the job.  As a political move (the soap opera aspect of politics) I thought that she was great.  Often I have to remind myself that people who get elected are expected to perform a real job, and that is when experience and qualifications come into question.

     First I'll give you my impression on the politics of the decision.  Just be aware that I have had a terrible record on predicting how people will vote or why they make their voting decisions. 

     First Palin is a woman.  I don't care who a person is, there is not anyone who does not like to see one of their own selected as a presidential or vice-president candidate.  For some this might be a deciding factor in their vote, for many it won't be, but I think that this pick does get the attention of every woman voter.  If nothing else I think it will build a little enthusiasm among Republican women.  I was also looking forward to seeing how the Democrats would respond.  So far I have seen this piece from fl NOW and a column from Susan Estrich.  I am a little suprised that no one has mentioned that a woman for vp candidate is a historic first for the Republican Party.   

     Second, Palin at least has the conservative credentials.  She seems to be fiscally conservative, at least from what I've heard, and she definitely seems to have the conservative social values.  That should make some people happy.  I think the "rift" between McCain and the "conservative base" has gotten a little overstated by the media, but there was definite discontent when McCain won the Republican nomination.  My first thought was that the only way Palin could be better was if she was a big "church lady."  Apparently McCain still has a problem with some of the politically active evangelicals, but I don't understand why.  I think some of it is remorse over the defeat of Huckabee, but I don't think that's it exactly.  Probably this is just one of those problems that seems bigger than it really is because radio guys mention it so much.  If I recall correctly, McCain and Huckabee came pretty close in South Carolina in winning the "evangelical" vote.  If McCain isn't pro-life enough for some, I don't know just what exactly it is they are looking for.

     Third, at this point I think that a younger candidate from wild Alaska will give the Republican campaign a needed shot in the arm. 

     On another level, I was just afraid of who McCain might pick.  I have had an up and down experience with how I consider Senator McCain, a few months ago I just assumed that he would find the worst person imaginable, and that would be his running mate.  Recently there was a rumor that he was considering Leiberman, and I came real close to re-considering the Constitution Party. 

     As for qualifications and experience, I really don't know what these terms mean any more.  I think that people just look at experience and pick-and-choose to make the "most experienced" person into the person they were going to vote for anyway.  Some have been in politics for greater amounts of time, some are legislators, some executives, some have business experience, some have higher offices than others, some have made more accomplishments in office despite how long they have been in office.  Whether there would have been a better woman and/or better person for the job is something I havn't really considered, but that is the question that is made of every pick.   I feel that McCain might have chosen someone relatively inexperienced in order to make a contrast against Obama.   In reference to the post from Mr. Kelter, Palin might be a first term governor, but Obama as a first term Senator doesn't stack up that well against her.  In terms of political rhetoric, it hard for the Democrats to attack her on experience, and it's hard to attack her without making it look like an attack on women in general.  I feel that if Palin was able to get elected as governor in Alaska that she probably has a good "game."  If she hold up against the Democrats, the vp race might become more interesting than the Presidential race.

Solo: Tsk, tsk on you.  Are you talking about the pagans praying for the statues?  Don't disparage them too much.  After all, millions of people turn to superstition every day in place of rational thinking followed by logical actions.

Solo, lest you forget, I am the one constantly thanking or invoking the so called pagan gods. Frankly, if you were to present all the tales of deities, pagan, muslim judaic or christian to someone with absolutely no prior knowledge of any of them, I very much doubt such a person would not deem them all on the same playing field. After all, the christian lore is not any less preposterous than say roman lore or greek lore. Verbosity aside, I prefer the old gods. It was a system that made so much more sense in that civilizations did not go to war to appease the gods like the christians, muslims and jews have done and still do.

Lily's Lore "I don't ever want to be rescued And I don't ever want to be saved I got a feelin' that I'm gonna be alive forever Dancin' on the edge of a grave..." Jim Steinman

     I cannot say whether the pagans went to war "for the gods," but they did war.

     As a historic curiosity, Augustine describes an event in his apologetic "City of God."  The situation at that time was that the Roman empire had been converted to Christianity, and as a result most of the old pagan temples had been converted to churches.

     Not too long after the conversion, the Visagoths conquered the Romans, and some of the Roman people blamed this catastrophe on the abandonment of the old gods.  To counter this sentiment, Augustine wrote that in all conquests of the Greeks and Romans the conqueror had always sacked the temples of the conquered, even though everyone worshiped the same basic greco-roman gods.  In the case of the Visagoth connquerors, they left the churches alone.  Augustine considered this as proof of Christianity being a true religion, and the pagans as being false.

     I don't know a lot about paganism, but if I was going to worship an alien god, it would be Nyarlathotep, the crawling chaos.

As alien gods go, Lovecraft has just as much credibility as any of the lunatic popes who tortured Indians to "show them the way to redemption".  Good one, Felix. Welcome to the Club For The Obscure. You would already know Jude (The Obscure) is our mascot. ;>)

As for going to war, you are absolutely right but what I was referring to was one never heard of Vikings killing Englishmen to get them to worship Odin. The same applied to the adherents of Zeus and on and on....(I didn't start the fire.)

Lily's Lore "I don't ever want to be rescued And I don't ever want to be saved I got a feelin' that I'm gonna be alive forever Dancin' on the edge of a grave..." Jim Steinman

     I generaly agree with you that as far as I know the pagans, here referring to the Greeks, Hellenists, and Romans, didn't seem to go to war for religion, they still pushed their beliefs on conquered people to wipe out their cultures. 

     Probably the best example can be found in the book of Macabees, where the Syrian king Antiochus placed a statue of Zeus in the Temple in Jerusalem, one of the events leading to the Macabean.  Caligula was planning to do the same thing, but was talked out of it for fear it would lead to a civil war.

     I cannot say that the pagans were as interested in converting the masses as were the later Christian nations, but note that all the lands conquered by Alexander the Great became Hellenistic countries that worshipped Greek gods.  In the case of the Romans, even though they had a pantheon of gods they still repressed several religions.  The persecutions of Christians and Jews during the early Christian era is well known, also banned were the cults of Bachus and the Great Mother. 

     You mentioned the Vikings.  I read once that the chiefs of Iceland made the decision to convert to Christianity by taking a vote.  Odd that the most feared fighers of Northern Europe, when faced with a decision that sent most people into civil war, got together for a barbecue and voted on it.

     It's funny how a blog can start out with Governor Palin and end up Vikings. 

Lily & Felix,

I have a bit of confusion with some of your statements.  First, I must admit that I can't comment intelligently on the Vikings (I guess they were in the Eastern Division at the time) or the Visigoths (They aren't in any league now) because of lack of enough knowlege.  (same with some of the obscure religions.)  I will also comment on the general conditions, emphasizing, general.  There were always exceptions coupled with the fact that in many cases, we are dealing with a conquering people, an occupying force.

In the case of the area of Palestine, aka, The Levant, A combination of Hellenistic philosophy was combined with Roman philosophy.  No big surprise since the Romans gladly borrowed from whatever source they came upon if it worked & suited their needs & wants.

As far as Roman religious toleration/persecution.  Once again, I'm speaking of the general atmosphere, not the exceptions.  The Romans were much more tolerant of Jews & Christians than Christians ever were of those who opposed them in matters of religion.  The Roman attitude, as an occupying force, was, basically, obey the law, pay the taxes, don't bad mouth our gods or whoever the fearless leader was at the time.  Also, persecutions were, by & large, put forth on civil/political reasons rather than for religious reasons.  Case in point, Jesus.  He presented more of a political threat, not religious.  Crucifixion was a common form of execution which was also used to humiliate the offender.

Alexander made it a point to be rather tolerant, for the time, of the religion of the peoples he conquered.  He basically not only left them to practise how they wished, he encouraged his army to inter marry & take up the local religion if they wanted.  Smart move.  Let the people worship the way they please as long as they obey the laws & pay taxes/ tribute.  Inter marry to get a hold of the next generation.  Results?  Mo money coming in.  Better peace than with the alternative.  Produce more of the same.  Great example of this philosophy can be found today.  In a number of places in the Middle East conquered by Alexander, Hellenistic philosophy & architecture can still be found. If he took an antagonistic, conquering attitude, as soon as they were out of power, most vestiges of the occupying force would have been eradicated.

I can't over stress that I'm only talking generalities, so please keep that in mind.  I also noticed that neither of you provided any sources.  There is a huge amount of source material.  I'll list only four.  The Battle for God, Karen Armstrong.  History of Western Civilization, William H. McNeill.  The Formation or Christendom, Judith Herrin.  In The Name of Heaven, Mary Jane Engh.

All in all, still great perspectives & yes, covering a wide range.  Ya gotta love it.  JATFUR.

Rich K 

That's a new one...very well.

The stuff about the Maccabean war came from the 2nd Book of Maccabees and "History of the Jews" by Philo Judeus.  The stuff about Caligula came from Wikipedia.  Regarding the cult of the Great Mother, this came from "City of God" by Augustine of Hipo.  Stuff about martydom came from "The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire," which I believe was written by Gibbon, and from Tertullian.org regarding epistles written by Tertullian to imprisoned Christians.  The stuff about the Iclandic Alsding came from "Unausspreclichen Kulten" by Juntz.