We need to apply what we have learned (previous entry) to specific examples.
I heard Lary King asking the following, as if it were a "gotcha": "Isn't it clear that Palin was not the BEST qualified, among the available alternatives, to take over as President--if required." (or words to that effect)
You may not realize it, but the above is SEXIST, especially in the way that leftists, feminists, and Democrats ordinarily use the term.
Who is the BEST qualified to be President among Barack "World" Obama, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Hillary Clinton? Only in your dreams is the answer Obama. He is the LEAST "qualified". "But...", you stutter, Obama has qualities not MEASURED IN EXPERIENCE.
Uh-huh. How can YOU say that Governor Plain does not have those kind of intangible qualities that John McCain saw in her, KNOWING that she was going to be EDUCATED in the INFORMATION she needs? You can't say that McCain is wrong, can you, unless you KNOW Palin, and the things about her, that he does? Does raising 4 children, and taking on a Down's Syndrome child with joy, COUNT? Does it count that she did that while FIGHTING the Republican establishment in Alaska (which ALONE would cause me to consider her as possibly "best" qualified--ANYONE who takes on almost ANY Republican establishment in this ccountry strikes me as a heroine, besides the Down's Syndrome baby). What about being able to go from a small town councilperson/mayor to FIGHTING the corrupt establishment on an energy commission, while raising those same 4 children? What about then going from being that same small town mayor, and raising those same four children, to RUNNING AGAINST HE INCUMBENT GOVERNOR AND WINNING? What about then passing ethics legislation, with Democrats; appointing Democrats to your administration; fully exposing and ending the oil related corruption that you had run against; amd arranging a 40 billion? (something like that) dollar natural gas pipeline that even Obama has endorsed. What about vetoing 300 earmark type spending bills in your first year--more than any other Alaskan governor in history. President Bush vetoed NONE in his first SIX YEARS, to his enduring SHAME. What about ending the Bridge to Nowhere? There is the sports background, and the overall uniquely American background. There is the energy EXPERTISE.
Nope. The QUESTON is SEXIST. It assumes that the accomplishments of a WOMAN like this, and her CHARACTER, could not convince McCain that she WILL, indeed, be the best person to take over if something happens to him as President. Maybe he read her CHARACTER.
Well, didn't McCain say that he wanted to pick a person ready to take over? I am sure he said something like that, as they all do. WHY should you assume she will not be ready to take over, and MORE ready than the other choices he had available?
You don't understand the subtle sexism here, do you? Now you would if the media and feminists were defending one of their own. It is the WRONG question, and the WRONG assumption, to ask whether the "best' qualified to "take over" person was selected.
You are NOT selecting a PRESIDENT when you choose a VICE PRESIDENT. Nope. You are Larry King are WRONG, if you believe otherwise. If John McCain, or I, were voting TODAY for President among ALL of the 4 people I named above, and Sarah Palin, would we vote for Palin? Probably not, as NONE of you people should have voted for Obama. So what? The Presidential nominee is NOT voting for a President. He is choosing a VICE PRESIDENT.
You say you don't understand the distinction? Sure you do. Look at Barack "World" Obama. Did HE choose the BEST qualified person to be President? Don't be silly. Hillary Clinton got 18 million votes. 18 million people thought she was best. Less than 5,000 thought Biden was best. Did Larry King aske the same question of Obama? I don't think so. But even if he did, it is still the wrong question.
I think Obama was WRONG not to choose Clinton, but can I be sure of that? Of course not. Obama is choosing a VICE PRESIDENT. The main function of a VICE PREESIDENT is to do what the PRESIDENT wants him or her to do. If you don't think that a person like Hillary Clinton will really be a TEAM player, does it make any sense to choose her? Of course not. It is like a star basketball player who REFUSES to be a team player. You may choose the person best qualified to be PRESIDENT, but NOT the person best qualified tobe VICE PRESIDENT (because--contrary to Larry King's stupid assumption--you are trying to put together the best TEAM, on the assumption you will LIVE). Further, by picking the best TEAM, you fully expect that you will have have the best PERSON to carry on your work (which, by definition for a politician, you will assume will make the BEST President) by the time anything happens to you, if it does.
Is Sarah Palin ready to be President TODAY? Maybe not. I would say "defninitely not" as to Obama. But she is just being nominated for Vice President today. IF Obama is NOW ready to be President (a big IF), was he ready when he STARTED to prepare to run for the job? It is 100% certain he was not. Sarah Palin has been acting as governor of Alaska, and not RUNNING for President. What Larry King assumes is that ONLY a person who has actively run for President can be chosen Vice President, because ONLY that kind of person would really not need to LEARN things.
I listened to Sarah Palin. I looked at her record. I agree with McCain. I have no doubt that Palin will LEARN whatever she needs to know to be prepared to be President. I have no doubt that she can do that before November 4. I have even less than no doubt that she can do that by January 20. But she does not even NEED to be ready on January 20. She, as Vice President, will be doing what MCCAIN wants her to do--learning all of the while. There is NO job for which it is more important to be able to LEARN than it is to be set in your ways. Palin's job will be to act as a part of "Team McCain". I believe McCain is right that she is the BEST person available for that job--even discounting the confidence that McCain has in HER. Okay, there are others (like Robert Jindal) in a position to provide some of the same qualities. That does not show that Palin is not "best" for Vice President, but only that there may be many "bests" (in different ways).
Any other position, other than what I explain above, is absurd. The TEAM is what is important in choosing a Vice President, and the ability to BE ready to be President if called upon--at the time called upon. To me, Palin seems best for that position for McCain. That makes her best for the nation.
"But.." you stutter again (you stutter a lot, don't you), McCain chose Palin BECAUSE she is a woman. So what again (so long as that is not the ONLY reason). A woman is what she IS. It is part of her. If McCain thought she had the qualities, including her "female" qualities, that he NEEDS for his TEAM, there is nothing wrong with that. Now this is not true in regular employment (although in an ideal universe it should be--that is a universe where there is no substantial discrimination on things like race). But the idea of politics is to provide effective LEADERHSIP, and the qualities for that leadership role may be better found in a woman at some times and places, and better found in a man in others. Feminists, when they are not into their LEFTIST IDEOLOGY mode, keep saying that females bring especially female qualities to politics that we--as a society--NEED. I say you need to look at people as INDIVIDUALS, but male individuals often think differently than female individuals. As I said, being a woman is part of what Sarah Palin IS. Being a MOTHER is part of what she IS. If McCain thought that entire package was/is the BEST Vice President for his TEAM, and therefore for the country if he becomes President, I see no reason to doubt him on that From what I have seen of her, I agree with him.
Now you may (rightly) think that the above proves I have been infected with the same disease of both Biden and Obama (who his supporters say thinks too intellectually about things on occasion). It is wordy.
The bottom line is NOT wordy. The selection of a Vice President is NOT voting for a President. You are as stupid (or biased) as Larry King to believe otherwise. It is SEXIST to suggest that a woman like Sarah Palin automatically does not have the qualities to be a Vice President, and a good President AT THE TIME SHE WILL BE NEEDED. We will have ample opportunity to continue to evaluate what McCain saw/sees in her during the next two months. If you are gong to close your mind on her, then I believe you are either sexist or a leftist ideologue. There is no objective reason to ASSUME McCain is wrong in considering her the BEST choic for VICE PRESIDENT.
P.S. It is also sex discrimination to immediately start comparing Sarah Palin to Dan Quayle. It is worth notig, however, that President Bush41 had a Presidency unaffected by Quayle's supposed incompetence. Bush's mistakes were his own, and Quayle had nothig to do with them. That is true of ost Vice Presidents. Dick Cheney, meantime, lacked a number of cruicial qualities necessary for an effective PRESIDENT. If Cheneywere forced to take over, I think the odds are he would have been a disaster (if ony because leftists would have made it so). That illustrates that it is the TEAM that matters. Thre is every indication athat Sarah Palin can provide as much to complement John McCain as Cheney has provided for Bush (since McCain is his own Cheney), with a BETTER ability to be an effective President, if necessary (at which time she will hafve the advantage of having the entrie McCain team available to her, with the communication skills to get the best out of them).
No comments:
Post a Comment