Why John McCain and America should be worried about Sarah Palin

From the perspective of many Republicans, the choice of Sarah Palin seemed to be a brilliant one. Mrs. Palin is an attractive, ambitious, tough, witty, popular, pro-life Republican Governor that connects with “Joe Six Pack”. She’s got a great story, a nice smile, and a killer instinct. Don’t forget she also took on some of the members of her own party and won, which complements McCain’s “Maverick” brand. What a smart choice! Or was it…

For the reasons listed above Sarah Palin was on my top 5 list of people that McCain might choose, but I didn’t really pay her much attention because I had convinced myself, that John wasn’t really going to try to court the Hillary vote. I figured that Mr. McCain knew that so few of Hillary’s supporters would toss their issues aside and would automatically run towards the female in the election that it wouldn’t be worth going after their votes. Additionally, I figured that at least McCain’s campaign staff would know that the person that started the “PUMA PAC” had donated money to him, so the people leading “PUMA” outrage were already in his corner furthering my belief that John wouldn’t pick Sarah. I figured that the McCain campaign would know that the economy would be the big issue in this election and therefore he would end up choosing Mitt Romney, even though they reportedly don’t get along very well.

You can imagine my surprise when he announced the nomination of Sarah Palin as VP at the Republican Convention. I looked at my husband and said, “Well, it looks like I have some more research to do.” Accordingly, I spent a good part of that following weekend searching through articles from Alaskan news papers and basically found out that all of the characteristics I listed above were correct, but my research found some characteristics that just may end up being bad news for McCain, particularly if he wins…

What else did I learn in my research both that weekend and over the past few weeks?
Well, for one Sarah Palin is no dummy. Palin has a killer political instinct. She may not be the most knowledgeable or well spoken person on any given subject, but she does have a knack for knowing what people want to hear and giving them just that accompanied by a side of home-town pie. While this may be good for a campaign, it’s not necessarily what would be good for a VP, particularly the VP to a President that is a 72 year old cancer survivor that has already lived longer than both his father and grandfather. I am not trying to play the age card, I don’t think his age rules him out at all, it’s just that statistically, he has a higher probability of passing away in office than other candidates like Romney or Giuliani do, which means Sarah Palin has a higher probability of becoming President. With her increased probability of becoming President, she better start hitting the books.
Sarah Palin is a very influential person. I mean this in its truest sense. She has the ability to gain the affection and trust of others and then use that affect what those people think. This of course does not mean that everyone will always agree with her and do what she wants, but many will. Given this fact, she could easily use a velvet glove to get her agenda on the board regardless of what her boss thinks. It would not be much of a challenge for her to strike up alliances with McCain’s advisors and cabinet members and use them to help push through what she thinks should be done.

Sarah loves loyalty. Who doesn’t want someone on their ticket who’s loyal? Oh, I guess I should clarify; Sarah loves those that are loyal to her. In fact, in Alaska she often hired her friends from high school to fill government jobs regardless of their past experience. And what happened to those that were not 100% loyal to her and everything she wanted, she had no use for them. Sarah frequently fired people for not “towing the line”. But, wait a minute, wasn’t she within her rights to do this? Yes, she was in fact within her rights to fire people for this or any other reason but, should everyone get fired if they disagree with their boss? Does anyone here wish that someone had spoken out to Bush about Iraq, or deregulation? I know I do. You see, in Sarah’s mind, if the Mayor/Governor/President says this is what I want to do, and then everyone else should fall in line. She does not tolerate dissenters. She says that if you don’t agree with her that’s OK and you can tell her that but once she says “Thanks but No Thanks”, it’s time for you to shut up and carry out her plans. I guess there are people out there that like this type of leadership, but I do not. It was people willing to go against the power brokers that founded and worked to perfect this country. It has always been the dissenting voice that has made the biggest impact; from Franklin, and Jefferson, and Adams, to Lincoln to Parks to King. The dissenting voice has always been welcome in America, and I would like it to stay that way.

Sarah Palin is very ambitious. She worked to become a sportscaster, a business owner, a mayor, and a governor. I don’t think there is much doubt at this point that she really wants to be VP and ultimately President. Is this bad; No, not in and of itself. It would be a challenge to find a VP that didn’t at one time or another want to be President, but in the case of Mrs. Palin, her ambition seems to affect the way she does her job. She works harder for the next job than she does at the current job. Additionally, when you combine it with the other characteristics listed above, it could prove to be difficult management situation for McCain.

Sarah is deeply religious. Not just your ordinary go to church every Sunday say a bedtime prayer kind of religious, but the crusading end of days is nigh kind of religious. Again, there may be plenty of people that are comfortable or even comforted by someone like this being in the White House, but certainly not me. Now I don’t care if someone is religious or not, your religion is none of my business, but when you bring your religion into your public policy making it very quickly becomes my business. I am not worried about the “Oh, I am Christian so I wouldn’t vote for gay marriage” type of bringing religion into public policy (which is still wrong). I am worried about the type of religious that brings the thought process of “Well, God gave me the thought of bombing Iran so it must be the right thing to do and if thousands of people die in the process, it’s OK because it’s all a part of God’s plan and he will make sure it all turns out well” into public policy. John McCain as a normal go to church kind of Christian should be a little afraid of having someone like this in his administration.

She thinks that the role of VP is whatever she wants it to be. She said (on video) that she would have to make sure that the VP job would be enough to keep her busy before she accepted the job and then she said (also on video) that she’s glad the Constitution would allow for more expansion of power when working with the Senate. Well that is only true if you interpret the Constitution’s wording of “The Vice President of the United States shall be the President of the Senate, but shall have no vote role unless they be equally divided” as meaning that as the “President” of the Senate you can do whatever you want. Historically, the role of “President of the Senate” has meant that you just make sure that proper order is followed and you cast the tie breaking vote, not that you are the Senate’s Operations Manager and you lobby the Senate to do what the President of the United States wants. It should prove to be very interesting (and scary) to see what happens if she gets her wish.

So what does all of this mean for McCain? Many of us realize for now, the future of the Republican Party is Sarah Palin. There are already rumors circulating that regardless of whether or not McCain wins, Palin will be running for President in 2012. Who do you think McCain’s staffers will be aligned with; McCain who has used phrases like “In my term” not “in my first term” mind you but “in my term” meaning only one term as President or Sarah Palin who has used the phrase “in a Palin/McCain administration”? My money is on Sarah. McCain’s staffers will want to stay employed and their best way of making that happen is to be loyal to Sarah rather than to John. When you add this to the list of characteristics listed above, McCain will have a tough time keeping in control of his own administration. I would suggest that McCain go have a little talk with Mr. Bush about what it’s like to lose control of your own administration and party. This could end up being as poor of a VP choice for McCain if he wins as it was for America.

Thanks for reading!

PS. Here are a few links to get you started on your own research:
http://yestodemocracy.org/2008/06/29/puma-founded-by-republicans/
http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/515512.html
http://www.adn.com/opinion/story/496302.html
http://www.adn.com/front/story/492964.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/13/AR2008091302596_pf.html
http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/011804/sta_palin.shtml
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/09/15/bess/index1.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVwG8WMACQk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wk1cCPaTmPk

Heath Care and Compare

Here are some web links so you can compare ideas from the current 3 Presidential Candidates on what should be done to address our current health care system. I recently finished reading these myself and you can find my comments peppered throughout this post.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/HealthCareFullPlan.pdf
In a Nutshell: Wants to make insurance more affordable and accessible but not mandatory for adults. Suggests giving everyone the option to join a similar insurance program to the one the Senate has. Wants to ban insurance discrimination due to pre-existing conditions and chronic conditions. Stresses preventative care. Suggests federal subsidies to help lower insurance costs for those individuals and businesses that need it. Believes that health care costs will lower if everyone has access to affordable insurance as there will be fewer unpaid medical bills and more people paying into the insurance pool. Also wants to improve technology to help with lowering costs.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/healthcare/americanhealthchoicesplan.pdf
In a Nutshell: Wants to mandate insurance coverage for everyone. Suggests giving everyone the option to join the same insurance program the the Senate gets. Wants to ban discrimination due to pre-existing conditions and chronic conditions. Stresses preventative care, and suggests tax credits to help make insurance more affordable for individuals and small businesses. Believes that health care costs will lower if everyone has insurance as there will no longer be any unpaid medical bills and more people paying into the insurance pool. Also, wants to lower industry costs through the use of technology.

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/19ba2f1c-c03f-4ac2-8cd5-5cf2edb527cf.htm
Comments: Wants to increase competition among insurance providers, Suggests promoting preventative care and chronic condition care. Wants to facilitate the development of national standards for tracking treatments and outcomes, Suggests lowering costs through technology and Torte Reform to minimize large lawsuit payouts and frivolous lawsuits.

There are some similarities in all 3 of these platforms. Obviously, there is more similarity between Obama's proposal and Clinton's proposal, but even McCain shares some points with the other two. All 3 want to lower medical costs through technology and all stress the importance of preventative care, but the way you "fix" the US health care system is where the biggest differences lie.

Now you can debate on which plan is better than the other. Maybe we should mandate coverage, or make it more available and affordable, or just let the market run it's course but in any case there is one substantial issue that I see with all of the plans. No one states that insurance companies would be required to actually pay for the claims.

It seems pretty basic that if you are paying insurance premiums that the insurance companies would actually cover the bill but often this is not the case. All to often insurance companies go out of their way to find a reason to not pay the bill. They state that the visit was either unnecessary or due to a pre-existing condition, or that the person has yet to meet their deductible or was "over treated". Whatever the reason, the insured individual ends up paying the tab and also has to continue to paying their premiums.

To add insult to this injury, insurance premiums have increased on average 11% per year while salaries have risen on average by only 3.5% annually. For many workers these increased insurance costs come at a time of corporate "caps" on salary which means that higher insurance premiums combined with salary caps will result in people having less take-home money.

I have to admit that the US is the only country I have lived in for any length of time that does not provide universal health care so my views my differ from many of you. Having lived with universal health care, it is something that I am very familiar with and actually agree with. I really enjoyed being able to go to a doctor or dentist without being concerned about how much my insurance would or would not end up paying, but I also understand that America has traditionally favored the free market approach. America is the "pull yourself up by your boot straps country", but in my view the boot strap approach is part of what has lead us to an overall health care industry performance rating of 37th in the world even though we have the #1 most expensive health care system in the world. Now I'm not saying that we have to have a National Health Care System like Canada's or England's but clearly our current system isn't serving us well either.

OK time for a plug: If you have not seen the movie SICKO I would strongly suggest watching it. it chronicles what happens at various points in the insurance claims process and what the outcome was for some folks. It also covers some health care programs outside of the US. Whether you agree with universal heath care or not, it still raise some good points.

I hope this posts helps you all to solidify your thoughts and opinions.

The "Perfect" Candidate

Once again, the Nation is out hunting for the perfect presidential candidate. We ask ourselves:

Is it Hillary? She has been in DC for a long time and has a lot of connections to get stuff done, and it would be nice to see a woman in the White House, and she does legitimately want to help people with their mortgage and heath care problems. Hmm....but then, she has taken a lot of money from insurance and pharmaceutical companies, and then there was those little scandals during her husband's presidency, and there is some sketchy info out there on her prayer group. OK, maybe she's not so perfect.

Is it McCain? He certainly has a lot of experience and knowledge, he is a war hero after all, and he does hate "earmarks" aka pork barrel spending. Hmm...but then, he does want to stay the course on Iraq, and has alluded to bombing Iran, and then he did name Hagee as his spiritual advisor. OK maybe he's not so perfect.

Is it Barack? He is definitely inspirational, he has tried to pass some good stuff in the senate (like improving VA benefits/treatment) and he certainly is intelligent and thoughtful. Hmm...but then, he hasn't been a Washington insider for very long and therefore may not have the experience we want, and then there is his mouthy preacher and his connection to Rezko. OK, maybe he's not so perfect.

How about Ron Paul? He does want to get rid of the IRS and he hates pork barrel spending. Hmm... but then, he is not that great of a public speaker, and he also wants to restrict reproductive choice and he wants to get rid of the Federal Dept of Education. OK, maybe he's not so perfect either.

All of these candidates have good points and bad points and realistically, if you put any human under a microscope none of us will truly stack up to our expectations.

Why do we want our candidates to be "perfect" anyway? Wouldn't you rather have someone capable of rational thought, maybe someone that has even changed their mind occasionally because they received new information, or someone that is capable of learning from mistakes rather than someone that has led a completely sheltered life and feels that they are never wrong? Isn't two Bush terms enough? LOL. OK, I guess that was a bit catty,but I think you understand my point. The "perfect" candidate simply does not exist and I think that (at least deep down) we all know this. All we can do is try to pick a President that we believe will actually try to get something positive done for our country.

We need to stop looking to the Mass Media to tell us who to vote for. The media is in the business of selling ads, and to sell ads they need to have ratings, and to have ratings, they need to sensationalize the news. All opinion shows, are just that, opinions. What we need to do is think. Think about what we need. Think about what we can improve. Think about where we want to be in 4, 8, or 10 years. Maybe Health Care is your biggest issue, or Taxes, or Excessive Gov Spending, or maybe you need to feel inspired by your leader. Whatever you think you need the most, go with the candidate that best represents YOU. It is YOUR government, YOUR president and he/she needs to be on YOUR side. You should never feel scared of your government, you should feel empowered by it.

Now, GO THINK and GO VOTE and let YOUR VOICE BE HEARD!

I am so sick of all the fighting.

Enough already! I am really getting tired of all the fighting amongst the campaigns.

The latest "attack" by Geraldine Ferraro (if you can even really call it an attack) is neither vicious nor accurate. While I don't believe Ferraro said what she did because she is a racist, I also don't believe that the tens of millions of people that have voted for Barack Obama voted for him solely because he is black. To say that people voting for Obama are delusional, naive, pro-black racists, caught up in the emotion/momentum, and are falling for a fairy tale is just plain insulting to his voters, his campaign workers, and indeed Obama himself! Additionally, I don't believe that Hillary is actually a monster nor do I believe that McCain is exactly like Bush.

While many of the attacks are "based on truth" the facts have been greatly distorted. It's kind of like watching a historical drama. Although it may be "based on a true story" the details (aka spin) is the opinion of the writer/commentator relaying the story. Let me clarify some of these points.

Fact: Obama has relatives that are Muslim but he is a Christian.
Spin: Obama was raised as and is a Muslim.
Comment: OK, Obama is a Christian, but even if he wasn't, someone please tell me when exactly did we lose our freedom of religion in this country?

Fact: Hillary is a motivated, ambitious female that is not all about flowers and chick flicks.
Spin: Hillary wants to destroy the country, and she is a monster that will stop at nothing to win.
Comment: Since when is being motivated and ambitious a bad thing? Haven't we all heard people say that women are to "soft" to be the Commander in Chief of the Military? So, it stands to reason that a "non-soft female" would be preferred to a "soft" one.

Fact: McCain has said that he supports many of the Bush Administration policies.
Spin: McCain equals a third term for the Bush Administration.
Comment: While McCain says he agrees with some of the Bush policies, he has also voted against the Republican Party Line on several occasions. I can't honestly say whether or not he is saying that he likes Bush's policies because he wants the Republican base to vote for him or because he actually agrees with the policies.

Please don't get me wrong. I understand that "spinning" has become an integral part of all campaigns, but I believe that people should only be "spinning" in order to put their candidate in a more positive light. To use this tactic as an attempt to completely discredit a person who has chosen a life of public service in the end does not really benefit any of the candidates, their parties or our country.

I am sure that some of you are asking yourselves why would I defend McCain in this post. Although, I am a self pronounced liberal and a delegate for the democratic party, I feel that it is just as wrong for the "Left" to "tear down" McCain as a person just as I believe it is wrong for people on the "Right" to try to tear down either Barack or Hillary on personal basis. In my view, incorrect spin is incorrect spin.