The "Executive Experience" argument:  Can we please stop this nonsense?  Palin was an "executive" of a very small town and then, for two years, of a very small (population-wise), weird state with massive oil and gas revenues to pay the bills.  Senators, like McCain and Obama and Clinton and Biden, are intimately involved in issues related to national governance, including foreign affairs, homeland security, disaster relief, justice and law enforcement, the environment, the military, and so on.  The idea that Palin is more qualified to deal with these issues on a national level because she had final authority to negotiate a pipeline is silly.  The idea that any of the Senators are unprepared because they only participated in national government and didn't make final decisions by themselves is silly. 

What's even scarier: Palin has displayed a marked tendency to fire competent people in highly-placed, well-paid positions and replace them with cronies, including, in one instance, a high school friend whose primary "executive experience" consisted of managing a mailbox franchise.  In that sense, I suppose, she is a true Republican-- look at Bush's attempts to put Harriet Maier on the Supreme Court.  Maybe she could appoint her mother-in-law to the Supreme Court. 

Palin is also a book-burner-- she is lying about that little episode in her life-- and she's either a hypocrite or a liar about abortion: she suggests that her daughter made a "choice" about keeping the baby, while insisting that, if she could, she would make it illegal for anyone else to have a "choice".  In fairness, she hasn't tried to push the social agenda as governor... but then, a governor does not appoint Supreme Court justices or the Attorney-General of the United States.

Palin and her staff occasionally used personal e-mail accounts to conduct state business so they would not--so they thought-- be subject to subpoena, if anyone dared to challenge her actions.  Can't wait to see who she appoints to the office of Attorney-General.  But that certainly is good preparation for someone who might inherent the constitution-bending role of Dick Cheney.

All politicians "fudge"-- well, they lie-- to a certain extent.  Palin is a bit unusual in the zest with which she embraces this task at the Republican convention and interviews, even when there are tapes and emails showing the contrary.  McCain must be hoping that this information doesn't filter down to the bubbas and marges of U.S. politics by November.  The lies pertain directly to her aura of incorruptibility-- in fact, we learn quickly that Ms. Palin is immensely corruptible and corrupting, as well as unqualified for the office she aspires to.

Sep 16, 2008

There is an interesting article here about why many poor, working-class Americans vote for the party whose policies are clearly against their own self-interest.  They vote for the party that fought the Iraq war to benefit the same companies that are now gouging them at the pumps.    They vote for the party that weakens regulations that protect their health and safety.  They vote for the party has steadfastly refused to shore up the one great government program that benefits them directly: social security.

I'm not sure I totally buy it but it made me realize that criticism's about Palin's lack of qualifications will only fall on deaf ears.  To many of these voters, the idea that Palin has no experience or knowledge relevant to the job of president is a wonderful thing, because they don't get what's so complicated about "cleaning up Washington" of all those vaguely evil people who, for example, messed up this wonderful privatized health care system so that it actually is more expensive and less accessible than almost any other nation's government-run systems.  "I'll be damned if I'll vote for a health care system that makes me wait for treatments I could get right away if I actually had a decent insurance plan..."

Georgia on my mind... how would the U.S. respond if Putin starting holding high-level meetings with Mexican officials to negotiate some kind of strategic alliance?  Hmmm.  Or if they tried again to put missiles in Cuba?  Well, hell, let's go for it.  World War III-- here we come.

Why do the Republicans always act as if the so-called Main Stream Media isn't allowed to reach the conclusion that-- especially this time around-- is obvious to any rational person: Obama is the better candidate.  The Republicans constantly howl that the media is "biased" because they know, in fact, that their outrage will frighten many journalists into giving them more favorable coverage.

What's wrong with the media having an opinion about the issues they cover?   The media are, compared to Joe Six Pack, relatively well-informed about the issues.  Many of them have spent considerable time with the candidates.  Why, oh why, shouldn't they have a preference?

So it's just possible-- just possible-- that Sarah Paliln is a lousy candidate.