[QUOTE="Insane00"]
While I find the argument about Obama's credibility amusing, generally it is so full of holes that paying it any mind is merely feeding the right fodder to continue their silliness, so I won't bother and will stay on topic...
I don't really think that people hate Sarah Palin, in fact nearly half the population supports her in some fashion, especially the Neocons, which of course is why she is still in the news. the problems with Sarah Palin are multifaceted. Primarily, the woman shows no ability/desire to actually address the issues at hand and try to come up with solutions. Yea, she is a great spin master and politician, but I want my leaders to be more than that. I want them to be able to see all sides of an arguement and after trying to observe them objectively, make the best decision. Palin, time and again, has shown herself as an individual unable to separate her own religions and cultural views from making a decision, as a result I have confidence the she will make decisions, not based on what is best for Americans of all ages, races, religions, economic status, sexes, etc. but what will be lauded by the religious right and only the religious right. I don't want to force a Muslim or Hindu to say prayers to Jesus in school, and I don't want the president to declare the world 6,000 years old and evolution a big fat lie just because a group of Jesus freaks thinks that they are right.
Further, Palin lacks the ability to separate herself from the criticism she recieves. Take for example the question asked of her during the campaign about what she reads to keep up on what goes on in the world. Now I have see/read the question many times given to many people, from politicians, to actors, to philanthropists. It is a common question the media asks of people that go out and talk about world affairs. However when Palin was asked the question she didn't name a single source of information, instead ranted about how unfair the question was. Now I won't go as far as to say that she couldn't name a single publication, in fact I would guess that at that point she was reading a lot. But the fact that she got defensive made her appear ignorant and uninformed, unable to name one paper. All she had to do was say, "Well I read the Times, the Post, and the Journal." And no one would have said a darn thing, what a stupid move for someone in the national spotlight as a vice presidential candidate!
Lastly, Palin is a housewife. Now before everyone gets all up in arms, remember she brought the label on herself, she brags about all her kids (yay for overpopulation) she comments on how she is a hockey mom (northern speak for soccer mom) and has shown herself to let familial problems influence her political decisions. There is nothing wrong with soccer moms or housewives, my mom is one and I lover her dearly. But I don't want my mom to be president! She isn't smart enough, she doesn't have the ability to make tough decisions, and she can't stand whining. She would make a horrible leader. People in the last thirty years have been looking for leaders that are, "just like them." "Someone I can have a beer with." but the leader of this country has the hardest job in the world. He/she is the CEO of the largest world economy, the most powerful military force, one of the most complex infrastructures, and the most difficult international relations. If you wanted a CEO for your company, you wouldn't look for women at a kid's soccer game, and you wouldn't try to find some rich hick in a South Carolina bar. You would go to Wall Street, or silicon valley, or Harvard, or Yale, or Duke. And you would hire a guy daddy put through school, you would hire a guy with the best grades, the most experience, and an awesome resume. So why on God's green earth would we try to find a leader with more riding on him/her than any CEO IN THE WORLD that reminds you of some guy you had a drink with on Friday night? WHY??
And before anyone starts talking about the American dream, I present this to you. Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the founding fathers thought that the general population of this country was not smart enough to be trusted with the actual handling of the country. That is why originally Senators were voted in by the House of Representatives (changed in the early 20th century) and they established the electoral college, which to this day retains the right to vote for whomever they think is most qualified (thus people voted for electoral college members, not for the president) so that the people wouldn't stupidly vote for an incompetant leader that would ruin the country. In otherwords the government was set up to be controlled by the intellectual elite with the people merely giving their opinions so as to avoid people like G.W. Bush. We have forgotten this (but who is surprised when most americans can't even name the three branches of government) and now we find ourselves seriously considering business graduate beauty queens for the office of VP. If Thomas Jefferson were alive today, he would hang his head in shame, or perhaps declare that it is time for another revolution.
-Sun_Tzu-
Actually Jefferson was much more open to the idea that the general public was smart enough to be trusted (albeit as long as they were white men). Alexander Hamilton, and to a lesser extend, James Madison were the ones who were a little hesitant to that idea.The biggest reason for the electoral college wasn't necessarily due to the stupidity of people (which should never be underestimated), but ignorance. When the Constitution was written there was no way that everyone in the country could become well informed about the candidates. In that day going across the country to campaign was even unheard of.
As for the rest, you have said what I was far to lazy to type.
Log in to comment